The National Prosecutor's Office has initiated an investigation into the abuse of power by the First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Manowska, the PK spokesman said. He added that the initiation of the investigation allows for a full evidentiary hearing to be conducted.
The proceedings, conducted by the prosecutor of the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office, were initiated on August 14.
The investigation is ongoing into the abuse of power by the First President of the Supreme Court – between September 2021 and July 2022 in Warsaw – by “conducting votes of members of the Supreme Court Board in a circulating mode”. During these votes, it was considered that judges who declared their abstention from participating in the work of the Supreme Court Board until the complete cessation of the activities of the then Disciplinary Chamber cast “abstention votes”, which were counted towards the quorum required by law.
The prosecutor's office assesses that Manowska may have violated Article 231 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, which states that a public official who – by exceeding his powers or failing to fulfil his duties – acts to the detriment of public or private interest is subject to a penalty of imprisonment of up to three years.
Małgorzata Manowska, first president of the Supreme CourtTVN24
The National Prosecutor's Office has initiated an investigation
The spokesman for the National Prosecutor's Office, prosecutor Przemysław Nowak, confirmed on Friday that the National Prosecutor's Office had initiated an investigation into the abuse of power by the First President of the Supreme Court. Małgorzata Manowska.
The information about the initiation of preparatory proceedings concerning Manowska was published on Friday by the OKO.press portal, which had already informed earlier – in mid-June – about the verification proceedings in this case.
As Nowak said, ten judges of the Supreme Court submitted a notification in this matter to the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office in June.
“The notifiers emphasized that the Supreme Court Board adopted resolutions despite their abstention from participating in the work of this body and thus despite the lack of a quorum required by law. A statement of abstention from participating in the work of the board was treated as an abstention in the voting,” Nowak explained.
“The initiation of an investigation allows for the conduct of a full evidentiary procedure,” the prosecutor stressed.
Main image source: TVN24