The Jagiellonian University's inaction (March 2026 – July 2026)
In spring 2026, Dr. Witold Kilarski addressed a series of letters to the Jagiellonian University (UJ) concerning the situation at the University and the conduct of persons linked to the NCN case — including letters to the Rector of 18 March 2026 and a joint notification sent to both the University and the police on 2 April 2026.
The Jagiellonian University did not respond to any of these letters. No inquiry procedure was opened and no action was taken at either rector or dean level. The UJ's inaction coincided with the prosecutor refusal to open an investigation on 14 April 2026 (file no. 4138-1.Ds.104.2026) — two institutions, acting independently, both closed the path to any examination of the case.
In response, on 19 April 2026 Dr. Kilarski filed an appeal against the prosecutor's decision and a complaint to the supervising prosecutor — both documents are available below.
After months of silence, the Jagiellonian University finally replied to the freedom-of-information request of 15 July 2026. In its letter of 28 July 2026 (file no. 75.0162.67.2026) the University confirmed that Dr. Kilarski's message had been received on 12 March 2025 and that on 17 March 2025 the Vice-Rector for Research had written to Prof. Wiesław Babik, Prof. Zbigniew Błocki and Prof. Włodzimierz Zwonek asking them to respond in writing. Beyond that — according to the letter — no proceedings were opened, no administrative decision was issued and no notification was sent to the NCN or any other institution. The reply does not state whether the three professors' explanations ever arrived, how they were assessed, or how the matter was closed. On 29 July 2026 Dr. Kilarski sent the Rector a formal demand to remedy the breach of law and to issue an administrative decision under art. 16(1) of the Access to Public Information Act.
On the last day of the statutory deadline — in a letter of 29 July 2026 bearing the same file number 75.0162.67.2026 — the Jagiellonian University supplemented its answer to the first question. The University stated that the Vice-Rector for Research, Prof. Wojciech Macyk, having received the explanations from Prof. Wiesław Babik, Prof. Zbigniew Błocki and Prof. Włodzimierz Zwonek, took no further action in the case. This is the first written confirmation that the three professors' explanations did in fact arrive — and that, after reading them, the University took none of the paths provided for in art. 282 of the Law on Higher Education and Science, nor did it consider opening proceedings ex officio under art. 287(2)(5) and (6) of that Law. The supplement gives neither the dates on which the explanations arrived nor their content, and does not address the remaining questions — in particular the question about the disciplinary ombudsman and the ethics committee, and question 5, on which no administrative decision has still been issued.
Documents
- 1.
Emails to the UJ Rector — 18 March 2026PDF - 2.
Notification to UJ and police — 2 April 2026PDF - 3.
the prosecutor's decision — 14 April 2026 (refusal)PDF - 4.
Appeal against the prosecutor's decision — 19 April 2026PDF - 5.
Complaint to the supervising prosecutor — 19 April 2026PDF - 6.
Order accepting the appeal — 24 April 2026JPG - 7.
UJ's reply to the freedom-of-information request — 28 July 2026 (file no. 75.0162.67.2026)PDF - 8.
Demand to remedy the breach of law — 29 July 2026PDF - 9.
Supplement to UJ's reply — 29 July 2026 (file no. 75.0162.67.2026)PDF
The first batch of emails to the UJ Rector — notifying the situation and requesting a reaction.
No reply from the University's authorities.
A joint notification addressed simultaneously to UJ and the police — a two-track attempt to trigger a procedure.
UJ did not reply; the police forwarded the case to the prosecutor's office (file 4138-1.Ds.104.2026).
the prosecutor's decision refusing to open an investigation (file 4138-1.Ds.104.2026).
The decision was issued at a moment when UJ still had not responded to any of Kilarski's letters.
Dr. Kilarski's appeal against the prosecutor's decision of 14 April 2026.
The appeal identifies evidentiary gaps in the decision's reasoning and the omission of the UJ inaction context.
Administrative complaint addressed to the supervising prosecutor — in parallel with the appeal.
A two-track legal strategy: an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure and an administrative complaint within the supervisory chain.
Order of the prosecutor accepting the appeal (24 April 2026) — the case is transferred to the District Court for Kraków-Śródmieście, 2nd Criminal Division.
The prosecutor confirmed the appeal was filed within the 7-day statutory deadline and by an entitled party — the case proceeds to the independent criminal court (art. 429 § 1 CCP). File no. 4138-1 Ds. 134.2026.
The first written response from the UJ authorities in this matter — following the freedom-of-information request of 15 July 2026.
UJ confirms it has known about the matter since 12 March 2025 and that the Vice-Rector sent three letters on 17 March 2025; it identifies no further action, no proceedings and no notification of any external institution. The reply was signed by an in-house counsel on the Rector's authority.
Dr. Kilarski's response to UJ's letters of 28 and 29 July 2026.
The demand invokes art. 282 and art. 287(2)(5) and (6) of the Law on Higher Education and Science, points to the internal contradiction in UJ's letter, and to the absence of the administrative decision required by art. 16(1) of the Access to Public Information Act. Deadline given: 7 days.
The University's second letter in two days, sent on the last day of the fourteen-day statutory deadline under art. 13(1) of the Access to Public Information Act.
UJ admits that Vice-Rector Wojciech Macyk received explanations from all three professors and took no further action. The very word "supplement" confirms that the reply of 28 July 2026 did not fulfil the request in full.