Where does this amount come from? In October 2018 – when Manowska was a judge of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, and at the same time director of the National Schools Judiciary and Public Prosecution – she was appointed judge of the Supreme Court. She was the director of the KSSiP, because she was delegated to this position by the Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro. Taking up a position in the Supreme Court Ziobro appointed her a new delegation – already as a judge of the Supreme Court. The then leadership of the Supreme Court decided that Ziobro did not have the right to do so. Ziobro and Manowska that yes – he does. The then First President of the Supreme Court, prof. Małgorzata Gersdorf did not give Manowska’s consent to work in KSSiP. However, this delegation took up and combined two jobs: a judge of the Supreme Court and the director of the KSSiP.
According to Manowska, SN should pay her remuneration for this, which, however, Gersdorf did not do. Prof. Manowska, therefore, writes in her financial declaration that the Supreme Court owes her a debt of approx. PLN 150,000. PLN “for functional and special allowances unpaid to me from October 10, 2018”.
Prof. Manowska: – At that time (October 2018 – May 2020) prof. Gersdorf. She ignored the decision of the minister of justice and did not pay me any functional and special allowances. (…) As a result, at that time, I was a full-time adjudication in the Supreme Court and I was working for KSSiP without any remuneration.
As today’s 1st President of the Supreme Court claims, “Needless to say, it happened at the expense of my private and family life. In this way, I became a victim of a conflict between two organizational units of the State Treasury. [SN i Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości – red.]by performing two jobs without adequate remuneration. “
Manowska, already as the First President of the Supreme Court, could decide to pay herself the money. But it doesn’t. – It would not have occurred to me to pay myself the disputed claim from public funds without the resolution of the competent authority – Manowska wrote back to us.
The dispute will not be resolved by the court. Prof. Manowska did not file a lawsuit against the Supreme Court. Why? – There is no such court dispute, because – as a judge of the Supreme Court – I counted on the fact that prof. Gersdorf [gdy była jeszcze I Prezes SN] however, he will change his mind and resolve the problem amicably.
But the dispute was not resolved amicably. Gersdorf invariably, being retired, claims that Manowska had no right to combine both functions. – A Supreme Court judge may not assume such additional duties. At that time, I consistently held this position – said prof. Gersdorf on the website praw.pl.
Let us summarize: when Manowska was not the 1st President of the Supreme Court, she did not sue the Supreme Court for outstanding remuneration. When Manowska is the first President, she – as she writes – cannot do it anymore. – At present, it is not possible for me to bring an action against the Supreme Court due to a procedural obstacle in the fact that I would then be both the plaintiff and the body representing the defendant, which is not permissible under the law – explains Manowska.
As a result, for six years of the term of office, the First President of the Supreme Court, prof. Manowska, a dispute over 150,000 PLN will hang over the SN, and the interest on this amount will increase.
The history of two works by prof. Manowska was dealt with by the disciplinary spokesman in the Supreme Court. – I was in favor of instituting disciplinary proceedings in this case – commented prof. Gersdorf. What to do with this troublesome matter has been decided by the disciplinary officer only in recent days. And what did he do? He refused to institute disciplinary proceedings. Why? Due to the negligible degree of social harmfulness of the act, prof. Manowska. At the same time, however, the spokesman found that “Judge Manowska by refusing to comply with the objection of President Małgorzata Gersdorf as to the continuation of the function of the director of KSSiP, fulfilled the features of a misconduct in the form of violating the dignity of the office, because she questioned the legal admissibility of expressing an objection, to which she was not entitled”.
In a word: the spokesman de facto found the guilt of today’s 1st President of the Supreme Court, and discontinued the case, because he recognized that prof. Manowska only copied Zbigniew Ziobro’s mistake. However, the ombudsman’s decision was appealed against by the College of the Supreme Court, Manowska herself and by the National Prosecutor’s Office subordinate to Zbigniew Ziobra.
–
