The disciplinary chamber, which was not approved by the Supreme Court, refused to consent to District Court Judge Igor Duleya in Warsaw and was forcibly brought in for questioning at the prosecutor’s office. Investigators want to question Duleya and accuse him of leaking information from the proceedings. The prosecutor’s office said it would appeal against the decision.
Thursday’s meeting lasted about 10.5 hours. It started at 12pm and ended at 10:30 pm. The disciplinary chamber, which was not approved by the Supreme Court, handled Judge Duleya’s case for the second day in a row. On Wednesday, the room began to work in the afternoon and finished just before midnight. After 8pm on Thursday night, Disciplinary Room spokeswoman Pyotr Balkowski, in an interview with the BAP, acknowledged that sitting for 20 hours in the history of the disciplinary room on such occasions was already a record.
Room at the end Refused to consentIgor Duleya, a district court judge in Warsaw, was forced to be questioned by the public prosecutor’s office. This judgment is not final.
Judge Adam Roche made the decision at 11pm on Thursday night. As he put it, the structure of the Supreme Court’s disciplinary chamber settled: – In the first instance: Judge Igor Tulea of the District Court in Warsaw refuses to admit detention on the ground that he has been charged under the article. Criminal Code 241 paragraph 1; – In the second point: postpone the preparation of the justification for a period of seven days, due to the complexity of the case; – In the third stage: order the state treasury to pay the costs of the operation.
“The disciplinary court cannot limit itself to examining the existence of formal conditions”
– In the context of allowing detention, the suspicion of a crime committed by Igor Tuleya cannot be considered sufficient evidence – Judge Adam Roche justified the decision not to consent to the detention of Judge Tuleya.
On the other hand, the judge agreed that the formal conditions for filing such a request had been met – Judge Duleya did not appear at the summons of the public prosecutor. “This attitude of the judge indicates that he does not want to appear voluntarily,” Roche continued.
– However, this does not mean that the disciplinary court, when examining an application for consent to arrest a judge, may restrict itself to examining the existence of formal conditions, he said.
The Supreme Court is obliged to examine whether such detention is adequate for the “current practical situation” and to analyze the evidence collected in the case. As he noted, the earlier revocation of Duleya’s immunity – even if legally binding – was not decisive in determining consent for detention.
“Announcing verbal reasons for Judge Duleya’s decision did not prevent him from taking any action.”
Referring to the planned indictment case against Duleya, Judge Roche said, “There are serious arguments that could lead to a public hearing approving the prosecution’s decision to suspend the prosecution with the possibility of spreading the news as a result of the open space.”
– The prosecuting attorney, questioned as a witness, testified that publicly declaring the oral intentions of Judge Duleya’s decision did not in any way preclude proceedings – the judge asserted.
Therefore, as he insisted, there was no threat to the trial of the session which took place in the Sezmin Column Hall, as a result of which the suspicion of a crime committed by Judge Duleya was not substantiated sufficiently.
The public prosecutor’s office files a complaint
The decision of the disciplinary chamber may be appealed against. There are seven days to submit an application. The case then goes to the second instance, i.e. in the case of the disciplinary chamber – to its second department, and the complaint is examined by a panel of three.
Sesshov Stanislavsky of the National Attorney’s Office said the state attorney’s office would appeal against the chamber’s decision.
– I would like to remind you that the first decision of the Supreme Court in examining the request for approval to hold a judge guilty was not approved, so the complaint was filed. After reading the written judgment, I think a similar procedure would be applied in this situation if a decision is made regarding the appeal – said.
The defender’s speech was interrupted
On Thursday, after considering several applications from defense attorneys, the Supreme Court’s disciplinary chamber substantially examined the attorney’s office’s request for permission to detain Judge Dulea and forcibly bring him to the public prosecutor’s office.
Two hours after the judge’s first defender, patron Jacek Dubois, presented the position Judge Adam Roche interrupted his speech. As a result, the defense filed a motion to dismiss the judge, but the judge rejected it. The other two defendants of the judge expressed a desire to present their position.
As of Wednesday, Judge Duleya stood for hours in front of the Supreme Court building, where demonstrations in support of him were taking place.
Attorney’s Office Request and Judge Case
In mid-March, the public prosecutor’s office petitioned the Supreme Court not to approve the disciplinary action against Judge Igor Tuleya and detain him. The National Attorney’s Office then announced that Judge Dulea had failed to appear in court for a third time, and that the CUT’s Department of Internal Affairs had applied to the Disciplinary Committee for permission to bring him under duress.
Judge Tulea subsequently refused to appear in the public prosecutor’s office. He emphasizes that he does not recognize the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court as a court and that the decisions of this chamber are valid. On Wednesday, Judge Dulea attended the demonstration in support of several dozen participants from the beginning of the session in front of the Supreme Court building. The court building was guarded by police officers. They blocked the SN main entrance and the front square of the building. The prosecutor’s office appealed to a disciplinary chamber not approved by the Supreme Court in mid-March.
The National Attorney’s Office said it had applied to the Department of Internal Affairs’ room at the National Attorney’s Office because Judge Dulea failed to inquire into the state attorney’s office for the third time. Compulsion.
In November last year, at the request of the prosecutor’s office, the Supreme Court’s disciplinary chamber removed the judge’s immunity. The reason for the prosecutor’s request to dismiss the judge’s immunity is the suspicion that the information obtained from the trial, as well as the data and evidence of a witness, have been disclosed, which could jeopardize the course of action. It is about the hearing related to Sezmin’s session in the Column Hall on December 16, 2016, which was twice adjourned by the Attorney General’s Office. In December 2017, the District Court in Warsaw, headed by Judge Thule, overturned the prosecutor’s decision to suspend the trial for the first time. The judge then allowed the media to record the oral justification of the court’s ruling.
Section 95B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, states that the President of the Court or the Court has the right to order a public hearing. “The session is conducted on camera, unless otherwise provided by law, or otherwise ordered by the President of the Court or the Court” – reads the text of the article.
Key Photo Source: PAP / Paweł Supernak