On Wednesday (3 September) at the Court of State meeting, a decision was to waive the immunity of the president of this body, Margaret Manowska. But that did not happen. But there was a immense fight. Przemysław Rosati, president of the ultimate Bar Council and associate of the Court of State, together with 11 another judges, was confused with mud by the talker Piotr Andrzejewski.
Mateusz Przyborowski, naTemat.pl: Piotr Andrzejewski mixed with the mud of the Lord and 11 another judges of the Court of State.
Przemysław Rosati: He may have tried, but Mr Andrzejewski managed – as you put it – to mix only his own reputation with the mud. Mr Andrzejewski's behaviour, which we have seen and heard, only proves him.
You watched very calmly in the gathering room. Were you so shocked?
No, but it's the first time I've actually seen a line-up chair escape from a meeting. moving away, he wrecked his good name along the way. It is simply a pity that he escaped and could not enter into a substantive discussion at a sitting of the full composition of the Court of State which he himself convened. I stress, he himself called a full lineup for this day, that is, all of its members, and committed us to a mandatory standing.
The scenes that occurred on Wednesday clearly showed an impasse in the Court of State. due to the fact that what would a regular Kowalski think who saw this fuss?
The sum of Mr Andrzejewski's behaviour, as well as his erstwhile actions – I mean here the chairing of the meeting, at which the "judgment" of excluding 12 members was taken – is an action aimed clearly at the paralysis of the Court of State. You can't lose sight of that.
I do not know what his subsequent behaviour at the sitting of the full composition of the Court was motivated by, but we can presume that since the proceedings had not been blocked earlier, Mr Andrzejewski decided to escape the meeting. possibly he did not have any substantive arguments and chose specified a solution.
Our behaviour was absolutely legal. Our appointment at the full Court was the consequence of our order to appoint this sitting, with compulsory presence. Repeat: with mandatory presence.
That is why we had both the right and the work to attend a full sitting of the Court of State. These are the facts.
What do you mean he didn't make it?
The fact that a provision has been made regarding the alleged exclusion of judges, I derive primarily from the media. Technically no copy of this provision in the form in which it should be served by a public authority, that is, in paper form with a stamp, I did not receive. These are not TS members – I'm talking about 12 judges – they make mistakes and do not apply the law. We act in accordance with the law.
In addition – and this is very crucial – in this case it was not about deciding whether Margaret Manowska was guilty and whether she had exceeded her powers.
The Court of State is to deal with the immunity, i.e. the full composition, must give its consent to bring Margaret Manowska to criminal work or to refuse her.
In pictorial terms, the case afraid whether the prosecutor could present the charges and later mention the indictment to court, i.e. to conduct actions, the same as for any Polish citizen.
As there are contradictions, I would stress that the Court will not deal with the case and the conduct of Mrs Manowska, but the criminal court will. The Court only decides whether to waive immunity or not. Just as the Sejm decides whether to waive its immunity. The parliament doesn't admit the criminal case, it allows immunity to be waived.
Meanwhile, 12 judges were deprived of participation in this process. It is as if any Members were abruptly excluded from voting on the waiver of the immunity of Mr X.
Moreover, this proposal is besides being voted on by the associate afraid in the Parliament and by Members who, for example, have witnessed his behaviour.
Returning to the situation in the Court of State by adopting the circumstances and grounds indicated by Mr Andrzejewski and Sak in the decision to exclude 12 members of the TS, it must be pointed out that the grounds for exclusion apply straight to them. Although they were not interrogated by the D.A., as members of the TS, they witness the act involved. After all, they know that there has not been a gathering of the Court by Mrs Manowska within the time limit indicated in the regulations in which they should participate as members of the TS.
Furthermore, the case concerns them directly, as the failure to convene a constitutional body within the time limit indicated in the Act besides deprives them of their ability to carry out their duties related to membership in the TS. Thus, by following the logic and knowing of the rules proposed by both of you, they are besides excluded from the law. And if so, they both had no right to regulation on the exclusion of another members. That's what he said in the sitting, what anyone could hear, the prosecutor. The proposed knowing and application of the rules leads to an absurd situation. It's apparent to everyone.
And people ask: Why were these 12 judges of the Court excluded, not 9 or 5?
This must be asked by Mr Andrzejewski and Mr Sak, 2 erstwhile PiS parliamentarians. And why twelve, no 1 knows...
"Mr.Judge Piotr Andrzejewski, whom I have known for years and know that he is simply a diplomatic and permanent man, must have been attacked by judges notified by the Coalition on 13 December. I wonder if they entered the ultimate Court building of the Coalition on 13 December in the ace of the safety company, did they enter themselves" – you know whose words?
Mr. Marius the Bliss?
Yeah. In this way, PiS MP in TVN24 commented on the disturbance in the Court of State. He added that he did not see "these pictures", but is certain that you attacked justice Andrzejewski.
(quietly)
In another words, according to Mr PiS, she was a bandit from your side.
That's quite a few crap. I will repeat again – we received a call for mandatory attendance and we became. possibly Mr Andrzejewski was amazed and so escaped from the meeting.
In her statement, Margaret Manowska expressed outrage at the conduct of the Court of State judges excluded from ruling on her immunity. She wrote about "the savagery of customs" and "an alarming violation of the principles of legal ethics". In her opinion, there was a "unlawful intrusion" of a group of judges into the premises of the ultimate Court, which are subject to access control and to the "collection of the court's courts". Manowska accused 12 judges of directing "screams, arrogant and uncultured responses" towards SN employees. She added that "there was a situation forcing her to take firm legal steps to defend the employees of the ultimate Court and safety in the court building".
After all, we were members of the Court of State in the Chamber of Meetings, doing our duties legally. No one's trespassing. No one's taken any. Togi and briefs – signed by name – were waiting for us in the gathering room. Nobody utilized any violence, nobody utilized the incorrect words. What Mrs. Manowska wrote is just a lie.
If we face the content of this message with facts, that is, with what everyone could see and hear, then I guess it leaves no uncertainty who behaved in the gathering room.
Moreover, according to journalists present on the scene, action was to be taken to remove the media from the Court of State gathering room. This is outrageous. And in the ultimate Court building. The image of all this is very sad.
You said in front of the cameras that any of Peter Andrzejewski's words were considered threats. The Vice-President of the Court thundered that you would "reply disciplinaryly".
Furthermore, Mr Andrzejewski added that this would be ensured.
On Friday there was a message that "The Disciplinary Ombudsman, Adjunct Ewa Krasowska, decided to address the Disciplinary Ombudsman of the Bar Association in Warsaw with an order to carry out checking activities towards Adjunct Piotr Andrzejewski". As we read, "The Disciplinary spokesperson of the Bar Association will measure whether the behaviour of Adjekt Piotr Andrzejewski during the gathering could constitute a violation of the principles of barrister ethics".
The Disciplinary Ombudsman is an independent body of the Bar, undertakes his own actions and conducts his own proceedings. The standard is that the conduct of a lawyer is subject to the regulations laid down in the set of principles of barter ethics and the dignity of the profession. Period.
We know that the Court of State gathering was discontinued until 22 September. Will you show up with 11 another excluded judges?
Of course. We do our work under the law. There is simply a legal issue that has emerged in this case, and about which we have asked before on 29 August, Mr.Andrewewski and Mr.Sak led to the issue of a "disfellowshipment" of 12 members, ignoring what we have pointed out and what we have brought before as members of the full TS. The Court of State must decide whether or not the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable in the substance of waiving immunity and, if applicable, to what extent.
It is only after answering this question that it is possible to decide who can regulation on this matter. It will then be possible to proceed with the designation of the prosecution's request to waive immunity. erstwhile again, the Court of State does not decide Mrs Manowska's guilt, decides whether or not to waive Mrs Manowska's immunity.
What if there's a rerun on September 22nd?
It is hard to foretell what the script would be, for a very simple reason: no 1 assumed this behaviour of Mr Andrzejewski at the last meeting. Our attitude, our substantive proposals that we are making, is aimed at preventing, first, the Court of State from paralysing and, second, consistently requiring the application of the law.
We will guarantee that the Court acts in accordance with the rules. I hope that Mr Andrzejewski will realize this and halt sabotaging his work. Nor should we underestimate what Mr Andrzejewski and Mr Sak are doing, due to the fact that this is an effort to paralyze the actions of another constitutional body.
Taking this all together, you truly are very calm about this full situation.
Mr. Editor, I'm an attorney, so to put it simply, I'm not afraid.
We anticipate only to apply the law, not to violate it. And delight note that we have already enforced this – the full composition of the Court came out, not any unknown "full-member" law.
Waldemar Żurek has been Minister of Justice since 24 July. How do you measure his actions?
I have no objection to Minister Żurek. I look forward to what is most interesting to citizens, namely changes that will improve justice. I realize that this over a period behind us was most likely a time to prepare solutions.
I think autumn is simply a good time to yet start talking about specifics in terms of changes in the area of justice that are waiting for the essential reforms. I mean the procedures, the digitisation, the changes in the structure of the courts to be closer to the citizen.
The pressing problem is besides the issue of the National Judicial Council or the position of judges. These are issues that must very rapidly look forward to concrete proposals and then work in Parliament and the President's decision.
On the another hand, there is Karol Nawrocki, who – looking at his actions to date – will most likely block all reforms proposed by the government.
If the president blocks these proposals, he will presume full work for the deficiency of changes and reforms in the area of justice. Consequently, he will be liable for the progressive collapse of justice.
Your name besides appeared on the stock exchange of the names of fresh justice ministers. Did you actually get that offer from Donald Tusk?
Let me put it briefly: it was a media fact.
![POWIAT NOWOTOMYSKI: Groził nożem w sklepie – trafił za kratki [FILM]](https://i0.wp.com/wielkopolskamagazyn.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/323-405706.jpg?ssl=1)
