The bailiff case — retaliation against a whistleblower

Date: 14–15 May 2026
Court Bailiff: Krzysztof Przybyła (attached to the District Court for Kraków-Krowodrza)
Office: ul. Kazimierza Wielkiego 112/8, 30-074 Kraków
Case reference: Km 834/26
Amount claimed: UNKNOWN (mBank did not provide it; the bailiff did not serve the enforcement title)
Creditor: UNKNOWN
Enforcement title: NOT SERVED (violation of art. 805 § 1 k.p.c. — Polish Code of Civil Procedure)
Effect on the family: approx. 74 425 zł of unauthorised debt

What happened

On 14 May 2026 — upon logging into the mBank mobile application — I discovered that all four of our family's accounts had been seized by a bailiff and driven deep into debit. I received no document from the bailiff, the court, or the creditor. From the bank application I established only that the acting bailiff was Krzysztof Przybyła, attached to the District Court for Kraków-Krowodrza, case reference Km 834/26.

What was driven into debit:

• the joint marital account (eKonto), co-owned by Jolanta Kilarska — an innocent person not subject to any enforcement title;
• the bank account of my 12-year-old son Piotr Kilarski (eKonto JUNIOR), which held 90 zł of his savings — driven to a balance of −18 402,62 zł;
• the EUR (−4 430,76 EUR) and CHF (−4 040,69 CHF) foreign-currency accounts as sub-accounts of the joint account.

Our family — myself, my wife, and our twelve-year-old son — was overnight deprived of all means of subsistence. We are condemned to destitution.

Legal analysis — eight violations

Liability of the bailiff

Bailiff Krzysztof Przybyła bears personal and property liability for damage caused by unlawful conduct — art. 36 para. 1 and 2 of the Act on Court Bailiffs of 22 March 2018. I demand: (a) the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, (b) the imposition of the most severe sanction — dismissal from the profession (art. 222 para. 1 pt 5 of the Court Bailiffs Act), (c) repayment of all amounts and payment of compensation to the family.

Liability of mBank S.A.

The bank — as a professional participant in commerce — was obliged to refuse execution of the seizure of a third party's account (the minor's account) and of the joint account without an enforcement clause against both spouses. The bank is liable under art. 471 of the Civil Code (improper performance of an obligation), art. 415 of the Civil Code (tortious liability), art. 24 and 448 of the Civil Code (infringement of personal rights). A claim for payment has been filed — subject matter value: 93 402,62 zł.

Banking supervisory complaint — domestic and EU dimensions

In parallel with the complaint to KNF (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego — Polish Financial Supervision Authority), I filed a supplementary complaint with four supervisory bodies operating outside the domestic KNF — in two languages (Polish + English), in view of the EU dimension of the case and the fact that mBank S.A. is a subsidiary of Commerzbank AG, and thus falls indirectly under European Central Bank supervision within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM).

Systemic dimension. This is not an individual case. mBank S.A. — one of the largest banks in Poland — introduced the eKonto JUNIOR product as a safe savings tool for children. If the bank allows enforcement seizures against parents to be executed against such accounts — automatically, without verification of the owner of the funds — the savings of thousands of children in Poland are at risk. The case requires systemic intervention.

The specific legal bases invoked before the banking supervisory authorities: art. 16 para. 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, art. 24 of the EU Charter (rights of the child), art. 7 of the EU Charter (right to family life), Directive 2014/92/EU (Payment Accounts Directive), EBA Guidelines EBA/GL/2014/13 (complaints-handling), EBA POG Guidelines (Product Oversight and Governance — supervision over products for children).

Full text of the complaint (PL/EN) — Document 12 (PDF).

Context: why this is not an "ordinary" enforcement

This enforcement is taking place at a moment when three parallel cases are ongoing in which I have reported corruption or irregularities in Polish institutions — and in which legal defence requires money for a lawyer. Stripping us of our means is an effective way of eliminating us from the proceedings.

1. Case II K 321/23/P — judge Henrych and the CBA report

In criminal case II K 321/23/P, presided over by judge Henrych, a conviction was handed down against me inter alia for publicly disclosing corruption at NCN. The court found "manifest falsity" in my statement without listening to audio recordings that constituted key evidence (violation of art. 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — k.p.k.), refused to apply the statutory defence under art. 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code (k.k.), did not hear my wife and a second defence witness, and uncritically accepted the credibility of the NCN management.

I filed a report with the Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne (Central Anti-Corruption Bureau — CBA) against judge Henrych — on the basis of information in my possession indicating that the judge received an informal benefit ("donation") in circumstances justifying classification under art. 228 k.k. (acceptance of a material benefit by a public official). The CBA transferred the matter to the Kraków Prosecutor's Office — and this is where a structural problem arises: the office of the prosecutor handling the case is in the same building as the chambers of judge Henrych. Instead of opening proceedings ex officio, the prosecution summoned me to file a formal criminal complaint. This is a manifest conflict of interest (art. 47 § 1 in conjunction with art. 41 k.p.k.) that makes impartial conduct of the case in Kraków structurally impossible.

2. The NCN case — whistleblower status

Since 2020 I have been publicly documenting corruption at Narodowe Centrum Nauki (National Science Centre — NCN). The case involves:

• prof. Zbigniew Błocki — former Director of NCN (alleged blackmail, ultimatum of 1 June 2020),
• Marcin Liana — former Deputy Director of NCN,
• prof. Babik from the Jagiellonian University (conflicts of interest, grant-colluding reviews),
• the Mudelsee case (copy-paste reviews of GRIEG grants, no NCN response).

I hold whistleblower status within the meaning of the Act of 14 June 2024 on the Protection of Whistleblowers (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) and Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) 2019/1937. The evidentiary material (9 audio recordings + 1 video recording + chronological correspondence) is published on this website.

3. Civil case I C 1671/22 (Regional Court) and I ACa 3378/25 (Court of Appeal) — Laura Bandura-Morgan v. me

Laura Bandura-Morgan — then head of the NCN Audit and Control Department, subordinate to prof. Błocki — brought civil proceedings against me for the protection of personal rights. This is the same person who, in the first recording of 29 May 2020, told me (as the first outside person) about the blackmail that NCN director Błocki had directed against me through her — and about the mechanism by which Błocki and Drąg destroyed my career (inter alia, recording 10 of 30 September 2021). All these recordings are available to listen to on this website.

First-instance judgment — judge Anna Chmielarz, 15 November 2024, closed hearing

Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Kraków Regional Court), First Civil Division, sitting as a single judge — judge Anna Chmielarz — at a closed hearing on 15 November 2024 rendered a judgment ordering me to pay the claimant: 10 000 zł in moral damages, 5 000 zł to Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej (Foundation for Polish Science), 1 077,49 zł in compensation, 2 594,51 zł in procedural costs and 471,70 zł to the State Treasury. In total, with interest and enforcement costs — over 18 000 zł. The judgment is available in full as a PDF.

The judgment itself, and its statement of reasons, remain extraordinary to me to this day. I quote point II(f) of the judgment (judge Chmielarz orders me to cease disseminating certain characterisations of the claimant):

„Sąd zakazuje pozwanemu rozpowszechniania w języku polskim oraz w językach obcych, we wszystkich środkach przekazu i komunikacji — […] — nieprawdziwych informacji i twierdzeń dotyczących przede wszystkim: […] f) rzekomego powiązania powódki ze środowiskiem przestępczym, jak również pozostawania przez powódkę «bandytom z NCN-u», «członkiem polskiej mafii naukowej», «socjopatką», «osobą zaczytaną w Mein Kampf», «osobą o paranoidalnej wizji świata», «przygłupem», «osobą symulującą gwałty»"
[English: "The court prohibits the defendant from disseminating in Polish and in foreign languages, through all media and means of communication — […] — false information and assertions concerning in particular: […] f) the alleged connection of the claimant to a criminal milieu, as well as the claimant being described as 'gangsters from NCN', 'a member of the Polish academic mafia', 'a sociopath', 'a person who has been reading Mein Kampf', 'a person with a paranoid vision of the world', 'a dimwit', 'a person faking rapes'"]
— excerpt from the judgment of Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie of 15 November 2024, ref. I C 1671/22

Crucially — these characterisations are quotations from my report to the prosecution, in which I described the claimant's alleged conduct on the basis of the recordings. Some of them, including "a person faking rapes", originate from other recordings in which the claimant herself accused, inter alia, prof. Drąg of rape (first recording of 29 May 2020) — and subsequently went on holiday with him to Madeira. Despite this, for the court these are "false assertions" that I must cease on pain of further enforcement.

The court also ordered me — I quote the judgment — to: publish apologies on the first ten pages of "Forum Akademickie" (in a black border 20×25 cm, in Times New Roman size 20, on a white background), send apologies by e-mail to eight addresses (including NCN management: krzysztof.jozwiak@ncn.gov.pl, biuro@ncn.gov.pl, Marcin.Liana@ncn.gov.pl, Maciej.Wais@ncn.gov.pl, and prof. Drąg: drago2075@gmail.com) and pin the apology to the top of my Facebook profile for two months. In other words, to the very people whose conduct I describe on this website — I am to send a written confession that my statements about them were false.

The judgment orders something factually impossible — publication on Facebook accounts I have not held for years

The absurdity of this judgment is twofold: the court ordered me to publish apologies on my Facebook profiles — including a post pinned to the top of my profile for two months. However:

• My main Facebook profile was taken over approximately two years ago (2024). The account was protected by two-factor authentication (2FA) and despite several days of subsequent recovery attempts — the procedure with 2FA is in practice impossible to complete.
• My second Facebook profile was taken over approximately one year ago (2025). An identical situation — also protected by 2FA, also inaccessible.
• I have no intention of recovering either account. I do not need Facebook — I no longer have contacts in the Polish academic community who might be the intended audience there.

Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie knew (or should have known) of these circumstances — they were the subject of the proceedings. Despite this, the court issued an order to publish on accounts I do not hold and which — for technical reasons related to 2FA — I cannot recover. This is a factually unenforceable order, which under art. 1050 k.p.c. should not form the basis of enforcement at all — one cannot compel a person to perform an act whose completion depends on a third party (in this case, Meta Platforms). And yet the bailiff is conducting enforcement as if this point of the judgment were enforceable.

Appeal — filed by adw. Wojciech Marek Zięba (13 January 2025) and my supplement (16 January 2025)

My privately retained counsel, adw. Wojciech Marek Zięba (Kancelaria Lux Legis, Osiedle Kazimierzowskie 35B, Kraków), filed an appeal on 13 January 2025 (full text — PDF, 12 pages), alleging: violation of art. 24 of the Civil Code, violation of art. 235² in conjunction with art. 286 k.p.c. (disregard of the evidentiary motion for a supplementary expert opinion by a psychologist), erroneous findings of fact, and a commercialised approach to personal rights. The appeal also contains an explicit motion under art. 374 k.p.c.:

„Nadto, na podstawie przepisu 374 k.p.c. wnoszę o wyznaczenie terminu rozprawy apelacyjnej, celem rozpoznania sprawy."
[English: "Furthermore, on the basis of art. 374 k.p.c. (Polish Code of Civil Procedure), I apply for the scheduling of an appellate hearing for the purpose of examining the case."]
— appeal by adw. Wojciech Zięba, 13 January 2025

In parallel, I filed my own 13-page Supplement to the appeal (16 January 2025), in which I responded point by point to the findings of judge Chmielarz — including:

• Unfounded impugning of my good faith. I paid my counsel 32 000 PLN to compile evidence for the prosecution report — that is almost twice the amount of the court's penalty. It would be hard to find better proof that I acted in the public interest, and not ex post for my own defence.
• The claimant manipulated the evidence. The photographs she presented to the court as published without her consent were published on Facebook with her knowledge and agreement. She cut out her own positive — including intimate — comments that she had previously left beneath them. I document this with annexes 3.1–3.3.
• Manipulation of my e-mail to prof. Drąg. The e-mail she was to forward to prof. Drąg on my behalf she doctored — she cut out most of my text, removed the critical attachment (my grant application) and inserted her own comment that prompted Drąg to destroy me. I found out about this six months later when prof. Drąg himself sent me a screenshot of his e-mail from the claimant.
• The expert psychologist's opinion was biased. The psychologist did not know why the claimant visited a psychiatrist on 4 June 2020 (i.e., one week after Błocki's blackmail — I drove her there, I paid, the 10-day sick leave was caused by the blackmail, not by me), yet that visit was attributed to my undefined actions. That was sufficient for the court.
• Prior restraint. The court prohibited me from describing on Facebook even anonymised situations at NCN — on the grounds that "the situation itself" identifies the claimant. But the claimant was one of several hundred people employed at NCN. This restricts freedom of expression guaranteed by art. 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and art. 10 ECHR.

Ruling of the Court of Appeal I ACa 3378/25 — SSA Andrzej Żelazowski, 28 February 2026, closed hearing

I was not notified by anyone that Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie (Kraków Court of Appeal), First Civil Division, sitting as a single judge — SSA Andrzej Żelazowski — was examining my appeal at all. That on 28 February 2026, at a closed hearing, the court issued a ruling dismissing the appeal (ref. I ACa 3378/25) — I learned only from the bailiff's documents served on me on 18 May 2026, that is, 80 days after the ruling was issued. My counsel's motion for the scheduling of an appellate hearing under art. 374 k.p.c. was simply ignored.

The ruling of 28 February 2026 was never served on me. The judgment became final on 17 March 2026. The enforcement clause was signed on 28 April 2026 by court registrar Milena Kozłowska. The enforcement title was issued to the claimant's counsel, adw. Aleksandra Bezłada-Drabik (Law Office, ul. Smolki 8/5, Kraków), who promptly referred the case to the bailiff.

These are not democratic standards. These are Cheka standards.

Convicting a person in the second instance without their knowledge, at a closed hearing, without scheduling a hearing despite an explicit application by counsel under art. 374 k.p.c., without serving the ruling on the party, and then dispatching a bailiff — this is not the practice of a court in a democratic state. It is the method of a secret tribunal. The Cheka and star chambers seem to be the model for Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie. Surely even in Russia people are not convicted in such a way that they never find out about it.

My situation has gone beyond the framework of Kafka's The Trial. There, at least Josef K. knew he was being tried.

What I am doing now

The bailiff seized my remaining savings in mBank — approximately 5 000 Swiss francs; he left me 1 000 CHF, so I shall struggle against the corrupt state a while longer. I have no money for a lawyer, so I shall act on my own:

1. Motion for service of the Court of Appeal ruling of 28.02.2026 with statement of reasons (art. 357 § 2 k.p.c.) — already filed.
2. Motion for reinstatement of the time limit for filing a cassation complaint (art. 168 k.p.c.) — the failure occurred without fault on my part, as I was never notified.
3. Extraordinary complaint to the Supreme Court (art. 89 of the Act on the Supreme Court) — appellate proceedings conducted without service of the ruling on the party violate art. 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and art. 6 ECHR.
4. Complaint against the bailiff's actions (art. 767 k.p.c.) concerning the seizure of my minor son's account — described in the section above.
5. Application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after exhausting domestic remedies (art. 35 ECHR) — art. 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial) and art. 10 ECHR (freedom of expression).

Naturally, I shall demand that everything be reversed.

Documents from the bailiff served on 18 May 2026

Court bailiff Krzysztof Przybyła (Bailiff's Office No. XVIII at Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Krowodrzy, ul. Kazimierza Wielkiego 112/8, Kraków) commenced enforcement proceedings on 15 May 2026 under ref. Km 834/26 for a total amount of 18 187,48 zł + 3,45 zł per day in interest. I received the full set of documents on 18 May 2026 — and it was from them that I learned of the entire appellate case:

1. Notice of commencement of enforcement proceedings Km 834/26 (15.05.2026)
2. Enforcement title — judgment I C 1671/22 + ruling I ACa 3378/25 (3 pages — contains the judgment of judge Chmielarz and the ruling of SSA Żelazowski)
3. Summons to submit a declaration of assets (art. 801 k.p.c.)
4. Cover letter to the bank
5. Seizure of account at mBank S.A. — notice no. 1 (private account with CHF savings)
6. Seizure of account at mBank S.A. — notice no. 2
7. Seizure of receivables at the Tax Office
8. Form

Depriving us of our means of subsistence during simultaneously ongoing proceedings in which I am the accuser or the defendant — this is not a coincidence. It is an effective retaliatory tool against a whistleblower.

What this resembles: Kafka's The Trial

Documents filed on 15 May 2026 — 14 documents

On the same day that the enforcement was established, 12 documents were filed by e-mail and registered post to Polish and EU authorities:

1. Complaint against the bailiff's actions (District Court Kraków-Krowodrza, art. 767 k.p.c.)
2. Report of suspected criminal offence (Kraków-Krowodrza District Prosecutor's Office, art. 231 and 286 k.k. — Criminal Code)
3. Formal complaint and demand to mBank S.A.
4. Disciplinary complaint to Krajowa Rada Komornicza (National Council of Court Bailiffs) — application for dismissal from the profession
5. Application for intervention by the Rzecznik Praw Dziecka (Children's Rights Ombudsman)
6. Complaint to KNF (Financial Supervision Authority), Rzecznik Finansowy (Financial Ombudsman) and UOKiK (Office of Competition and Consumer Protection)
7. Supervisory complaint to the President of the District Court
8. Application for appointment of a guardian for the minor (Family Court, art. 99 k.r.o. — Family and Guardianship Code)
9. Application for interim relief and stay of enforcement
10. Claim for payment against mBank — 93 402,62 zł
11. Complaint to the President of UODO (Personal Data Protection Office) (GDPR — minor's data)
12. Complaint to EBA, BFG, Banking Consumer Arbitration and NBP (PL/EN)

Auxiliary files: mailing address list — list of institutions.