Poland’s Supreme Court dismissed proceedings against judge Piotr Schab, citing a flaw in the prosecutor’s standing, amidst ongoing disputes over prosecutorial leadership.
Supreme Court Decision and Formal Grounds
The Supreme Court dismissed the case concerning the lifting of immunity for judge Piotr Schab. The court’s decision stems from the finding that the prosecution’s motion was submitted by an unauthorized individual, hindering further proceedings. The ruling, issued on Thursday, is not yet final.
Schab’s Disciplinary Role and Initial Charges
The case revolved around a request to lift the immunity of judge Piotr Schab, who previously served as the disciplinary spokesman for common courts. The prosecution intended to bring charges related to dereliction of duty and abuse of power, specifically concerning the non-release of files from disciplinary proceedings.
Invalid Prosecutor’s Standing Leads to Dismissal
The Criminal Responsibility Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the proceedings on formal grounds. Judge Maria Szczepaniec explained that the motion was defective because it did not originate from the proper authority.
The court determined that Dariusz Barski held the status of an active prosecutor and served as the National Prosecutor. However, the motion was signed by prosecutor Dariusz Makowski, acting head of the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office.
Legal Challenges to Prosecutor Appointments
The issue arose because Makowski’s appointment was made by Jacek Bilewicz, who was acting as National Prosecutor. The Supreme Court, citing previous rulings, found that Bilewicz was not effectively authorized to perform this function, thus undermining the legality of his personnel decisions.
Consequently, the entire motion was deemed to have a formal defect, preventing its consideration. This means the court did not address the merits of the charges against Schab.
Ongoing Dispute Over Prosecutorial Leadership
The Supreme Court’s decision aligns with the ongoing dispute since the beginning of 2024 regarding the legality of the prosecution’s leadership. The focal point was Justice Minister and Prosecutor General Adam Bodnar’s decision to challenge the reinstatement of Dariusz Barski from retirement.
In January 2024, Barski received a document stating that his return to active service violated the law and had no legal effect. In response, the duties of National Prosecutor were entrusted to Jacek Bilewicz. A subsequent competition was won by Dariusz Korneluk, who was appointed by the Prime Minister in mid-March 2024. However, some legal circles and state institutions still recognize Barski as the legitimate National Prosecutor, leading to interpretative discrepancies and jurisdictional disputes.
Charges Against Schab and Disciplinary Spokesmanship Dispute
The proceedings against Piotr Schab were related to his refusal to hand over files from disciplinary proceedings to spokespersons appointed by the Ministry of Justice, referred to as ad hoc spokespersons. The prosecution considered this action a potential violation of the law.
Schab consistently questioned the legality of the appointment of these spokespersons and their authority to conduct proceedings. This dispute is part of a broader conflict concerning the system of disciplinary responsibility for judges in Poland.
From 2018 to 2025, Schab served as the central disciplinary spokesman. In 2025, the Ministry of Justice dismissed him and his deputies, Michał Lasota and Przemysław Radzik. However, all three did not recognize the validity of these decisions, citing a lack of legal basis.
Implications of the Ruling
Thursday’s ruling does not definitively conclude the case, as it is not final. However, it opens the door to further procedural disputes that may be significant for subsequent proceedings involving judges and prosecutors.
In practice, any renewed motion to lift immunity will require preparation by an authority whose legal status is beyond doubt. In the current situation, with the ongoing dispute over the prosecution’s leadership, this may prove difficult.
The Supreme Court’s decision also reinforces the importance of formal aspects of proceedings in disciplinary and criminal cases involving public officials. It also demonstrates that institutional conflict within the justice system directly affects the effectiveness of law enforcement actions.
