The whistleblower punished, not the corrupt officials

Instead of prosecuting alleged corruption, Poland's justice system turned against the whistleblower.

II K 321/23/P
District Court, Kraków
NCN/Błocki vs. Kilarski — criminal defamation proceedings. The NCN Director used the legal system to silence the person who exposed wrongdoing.
I C 1671/22
Regional Court, Kraków
NN vs. Kilarski — civil lawsuit for protection of personal rights. The person who delivered the director's ultimatum sued the whistleblower.
I ACa 3378/25
Court of Appeal, Kraków
Appeal of the I C 1671/22 verdict. Proceedings ongoing.
I Co 464624K
District Court, Kraków-Krowodrza
Enforcement proceedings — 5,000 PLN fine imposed on the whistleblower.
4135-1.Ds.96.2022
District Prosecutor's Office, Kraków-Krowodrza
the prosecutor (earlier case) refused to investigate NCN alleged corruption — despite recordings and documents being presented.

The judge in my NCN case received PLN 400,000 in gifts (not from family) in the very month his random assignment to my case was made

This section concerns the judge to whom my case involving the National Science Centre Poland (NCN) was assigned by random allocation and who — according to his asset declaration — in the same month and year his random assignment to my case was made, received a total of PLN 400,000 in gifts. These gifts did not come from his family.

⚖️

Temporal coincidence: random case allocation and PLN 400,000 in gifts

Source: judge’s public asset declaration for 2023

Documentation indicates that, in the same month and year my NCN case was randomly assigned to this judge, he received a total of PLN 400,000 in cash gifts. In his 2023 asset declaration, the judge did not list the donors as immediate family members; the disclosed source is not inheritance and not from family.

From the standpoint of judicial impartiality (art. 41 § 1 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure; art. 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure; art. 178 § 1 of the Polish Constitution), such a substantial — and indirectly documented — temporal coincidence raises serious questions about: (i) the source and legal title of the gifts; (ii) the duty to recuse the judge (iudex inhabilis / suspectus); (iii) the obligation to fully and truthfully disclose sources of wealth in the asset declaration (art. 87 § 6 of the Polish Law on Common Courts).

Pending — source documents will be attached

This section will then include: full asset declaration for 2023; legal analysis “Acceptance of a PLN 400,000 gift by a judge and judicial impartiality”; identifying details of the judge, the case file reference, and the document confirming the date of random assignment.

Document preview
Menu