There were no surprises. During its first session, the newly constituted National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) appeared determined to “deal with” the lawful Disciplinary Ombudsman for Ordinary Court Judges (RDSSP) and his deputies at all costs. In the position ultimately adopted by the Council, judges Piotr Schab, Michał Lasota, and Przemysław Radzik were accused of having “grossly betrayed” the requirements of impeccable character and the highest ethical standards. During the debate, Judge Bartłomiej Starosta even offered a rather peculiar example in support of the accusations.
The issue of the disciplinary ombudsman and his deputies was included on the agenda because, under the law, the National Council of the Judiciary is obliged to provide office space enabling the RDSSP and his deputies to perform their duties.
“As I understand it, this position is intended as a kind of justification for what the thirteen-member initiating group may already have decided, namely depriving the disciplinary ombudsmen of administrative support. Whether through changing the locks, deactivating access cards, or bringing in the police—because that has become the fashion since December 13: when you have no legal arguments, you bring in armed and uniformed officers to enforce compliance. But with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, this resolution will not absolve you of responsibility for what happens next,”
Judge Łukasz Piebiak said forcefully while opposing the draft resolution ultimately adopted by the Council.
Vote delayed until the final moments
KRS Chairman Dariusz Zawistowski postponed the vote on the written resolution concerning the RDSSP until the very end of the session. Members were then presented with a document that had been prepared in advance.
“I do not need to remind anyone how they behaved,”
Judge Starosta said while presenting the draft, referring to Judges Schab, Lasota, and Radzik.
He also noted that the disciplinary ombudsman’s office had initiated several disciplinary proceedings against him.
The resolution adopted by the Council stated:
“The Council finds that the dismissal by the Minister of Justice of Judge Piotr Schab from the position of Disciplinary Ombudsman for Ordinary Court Judges, and Judges Przemysław Radzik and Michał Lasota from the positions of Deputy Disciplinary Ombudsmen, was effective as of the date of dismissal. Since September 15, 2025, the office of Disciplinary Ombudsman for Ordinary Court Judges has been effectively held by Judge Joanna Raczkowska, while the positions of Deputy Ombudsmen have been effectively held by Judge Tomasz Ładny since July 16, 2025, and Judge Grzegorz Kasicki since September 18, 2025.”
Praise for the Minister of Justice
The new KRS openly endorsed the actions taken by Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek.
“In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, it is impossible for a disciplinary ombudsman or deputy ombudsman to be completely immune from dismissal. Since the legislature entrusted the Minister of Justice with the authority to appoint individuals to these positions, this also implies the power to remove them when their continued service can no longer be reconciled with the interests of the justice system,”
the Council declared.
Judge Łukasz Zawadzki objected:
“If we are members of the National Council of the Judiciary and are supposed to safeguard judicial independence, then let us not turn our resolutions into hymns of praise for the Minister of Justice!”
He questioned the widespread acceptance of the view that the minister may freely expand powers granted to him, contrary to the Constitution.
“If there is a sign on a lawn saying ‘Keep off the grass,’ that does not mean you can drive a tank over it,”
Judge Zawadzki remarked.
“Yet that is precisely the kind of interpretation underlying the minister’s decision.”
Starosta: “Judge Radzik threatened TVN”
Judge Piebiak was particularly critical of what he described as unsupported accusations concerning the conduct of the disciplinary ombudsman and his deputies.
The adopted resolution stated:
“The nature and role of the disciplinary ombudsman for ordinary court judges and his deputies require, in a particular way, impeccable character and the highest ethical standards. A person who betrays the principles of judicial independence should not hold any of these offices, especially where such conduct is of a gross nature.”
During the debate, Judges Piebiak and Zawadzki asked which specific actions or character traits of Judges Schab, Radzik, and Lasota supposedly disqualified them from holding office—particularly given that the Supreme Court of Poland had not questioned the legality of their appointments.
In response, they were advised to consult reports published by OKO.press.
Judge Starosta then offered an example:
“I will give one example involving Judge Przemysław Radzik, who threatened a TVN journalist—or perhaps the TVN station itself—that he would not forgive them and that his mother was crying. I do not remember the exact wording, although I have seen it many times. That certainly was not conduct consistent with judicial ethics.”
“Come to your senses”
Judge Piebiak sharply criticized the adopted position.
“Come to your senses before violating personal rights, or even venturing into the realm of criminal law. These individuals have the right to defend their good name and not to be insulted in an official document such as a resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary,”
he appealed to fellow Council members.
He also argued that the Council lacked the authority to take a position on the matter at all.
“We as a Council have no right to decide this issue. The courts and the Supreme Court determine who is the disciplinary ombudsman. All of us here owe obedience to the judgments and rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when no further appeals are available,” Judge Piebiak concluded.
