Supreme Court Denies Request to Strip Judge Schab of Immunity
The Supreme Court’s Chamber of Professional Responsibility has rejected a motion to waive the immunity of disciplinary commissioner Piotr Schab, ruling that his public allegations against Judge...
The Supreme Court’s Chamber of Professional Responsibility has rejected a motion to waive the immunity of disciplinary commissioner Piotr Schab, ruling that his public allegations against Judge Waldemar Żurek were legally insufficient.
Table Of Content
The origins of the dispute
The Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office filed the motion to waive the immunity of Judge Piotr Schab. The case stemmed from a May 2022 press conference where Schab accused Waldemar Żurek, a judge and current Minister of Justice, of falsifying the dates on court rulings.
Schab alleged that during his tenure on the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) between 2012 and 2018, Żurek committed forgery in at least 64 cases by misstating the dates of his judgments. Schab further claimed that KRS records showed Żurek attended council meetings at the times he was supposedly issuing rulings in Kraków.
Legal counterclaims and accusations
Waldemar Żurek dismissed the accusations as a “political hollow shell” and an incompetent attempt to target him. He asserted that for years he has been targeted by disciplinary officials acting under the authority of former Minister Zbigniew Ziobro and denied ever falsifying document dates.
Żurek vowed to hold those responsible for the smear campaign accountable in court. Following an initial refusal by the prosecutor’s office, a court-ordered investigation led to proceedings in 2024, culminating in the immunity waiver request reaching the Supreme Court in early 2026.
Supreme Court ruling and reasoning
Judge Zbigniew Korzeniowski of the Supreme Court stated that while Schab “said too much” at the 2022 press conference, it did not warrant criminal charges. The court argued that as a civil law expert, Judge Żurek’s procedural inaccuracies regarding dates were not central to the validity of the rulings.
The court noted that Schab, as a criminal law specialist, likely misunderstood the nuances of civil proceedings and the nature of such clerical errors. Schab defended his actions, maintaining that he was fulfilling his duty to inform the public and that he had not branded Żurek a criminal.