Amber Gold: Court postpones judgement for the second time until August 29

upday.com 2 days ago
By 29 August, the Court of Appeal in Warsaw postponed the judgement on the group suit of nearly 200 Amber Gold customers. In 2022 the Court of First Instance ruled the amounts requested from the State Treasury. Currently, with interest, it is at least PLN 25 million.PAP

The Court of Appeals in Warsaw for the second time postponed the announcement of a judgement on the client suit of the fallen company Amber Gold. The fresh deadline was set for August 29. The judge’s composition justified the decision by the degree of the evidence and the complex nature of the case. Those affected are disappointed by the chronicity of their conduct.

Judge Katarzyna Kisiel informed the court of the decision. As she explained, the postponement involves "the vastness of the evidence" and "the complex nature of the case".

"In a period there will be a publication of the ruling" - added justice Kisiel. The appeal process itself ended in the court of appeal at the end of June.

Second postponement in a row

It was then that the judge’s chair postponed the publication of the judgement on a one-month period. It is so a second postponement of the judgement in this public case.

The victims came to the transportation of the judgement and expressed disappointment by assessing the negative long-term action of the judiciary in this case. Amber Gold's case was 1 of the louder scandals that, a fewer years ago, focused the attention of politicians, media and public opinion, as well as the Sejm's committee of inquiry.

Judgment of the first instance

In this case, 3 years ago, the Warsaw territory court in its first instance took into account Amber Gold's client action. The basic conclusion of the justification for the first instance court ruling was that the investigation into Amber Gold was undertaken "with considerable hold by law enforcement."

This, according to the Court of First Instance, was the "complex nature of the illegality of the Treasury". Among another things, the lawyer General, representing the Treasury, appealed against this decision.

(PAP) Note: This article was edited with Artificial Intelligence.

Read Entire Article