Aggregated public profile · Not an official account.

Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that the obligation to adhere to binding international law does not mean the possibility of creating new powers for state authorities based on opinions from international institutions. He pointed out that Article 9 of the Constitution mandates compliance with such law, while Articles 87 and 91 specify the sources of universally applicable law and the status of ratified international agreements. He highlighted that the Venice Commission is an advisory body of the Council of Europe, and its opinions are neither treaties, judicial decisions, nor an independent source of state powers. Kusznieruk emphasized that binding rulings from international courts have a different status than non-binding opinions from advisory bodies. He also questioned whether international obligations in themselves authorize the Speaker of the Sejm to replace the President in the procedure for the oath of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and demanded the identification of a provision that would establish such a competence. He added that referring to common values of legal orders does not provide a legal basis for granting powers, and Article 7 of the Constitution still applies. In his view, the argumentation did not clarify on what basis the Speaker of the Sejm could replace the President of Poland. He stressed that the competence must exist before the authority can exercise it, and the Constitution defines the limits of power. #prawo #Konstytucja #międzynarodowe (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that the police entered the apartment of the chief editor of TV Republika, Tomasz Sakiewicz, and a woman present there was handcuffed and taken away. According to the author, after several months, the Warsaw Police Headquarters confirmed violations of service discipline by two officers: one did not turn on the body camera, and the other failed to fulfill several obligations. Kusznieruk stated that the consequence was disciplinary talks and assessed that it was an insufficient response to the violation of procedures during an intervention that infringed upon a citizen's rights. The author believed that such an outcome could encourage abuse of power and impunity among officers. He also pointed to its political context and warned that similar mechanisms could be employed by a future ruling team, this time with greater severity. He added that he knows Sakiewicz personally and left the assessment of this information and the entire situation to the readers. Kusznieruk recalled words attributed to Gogol: "You are laughing at yourselves," referring them to those pleased with the development of the case. He emphasized that civil rights should be protected regardless of who is in power and against whom the police intervenes. In his assessment, the slogan "Shielding the uniform" should not mean support for abuses. #PrawaCzłowieka #Polska #Bezpieczeństwo (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk accused the interlocutor of citing Article 4 of the law on the status of Constitutional Tribunal judges while ignoring Article 5, according to which — as he pointed out — the employment relationship of a tribunal judge was established after taking an oath. He emphasized that being elected to the position was not the same as assuming office and starting duties, and the oath had to be taken before the President of the Republic of Poland. Kusznieruk noted that the argument about the possibility of resigning from the position did not prove that taking the oath was unnecessary. He added that the refusal of the president to receive it did not justify unilaterally replacing the statutory procedure, and merely pronouncing the oath in his absence did not settle the legal dispute. He also recalled Article 7 of the Constitution, indicating that public authorities acted on the basis of and within the limits of the law. He asked the interlocutor for the specific legal basis for recognizing the oath taken on October 14 in the Sejm without the participation of the president as valid, in the sense of Articles 4 and 5 of the law. He assessed that the presented argumentation was more political acrobatics than a convincing interpretation of the law and added that signing as a constitutional tribunal judge would be premature at this stage. #Prawo #Konstytucja #Sędziowie (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that citizens demanded explanations from the Police, while the formation itself seemed to be seeking protection from the citizens. He reminded that on October 16, Kierwiński announced the referral of the matter to the prosecutor's office, and three days later, Boroń promised legal support to the police officers. Kusznieruk asked where the explanations regarding brutal interventions are and argued that the uniform does not exempt from responsibility, and criticism is not a crime. He added that the Police should be accountable to the citizens, not silence them. #Polska #Policja #Obywatele (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk questioned whether the Sejm documented the verification of Maciej Berek's qualifications for selection to the Constitutional Tribunal. He wrote that Andrzej Filipowicz requested documents from the Chancellery of the Sejm and the Justice and Human Rights Committee, but the received response — according to Filipowicz’s account — did not mention documents from the bar association confirming Berek's qualifications and experience. Kusznieruk pointed out a discrepancy between Sejm print number 3006 from August 14, 2026, which stated that Berek had been practicing as a legal advisor since 2001 and actively for 25 years, and a certificate from OIRP in Warsaw dated September 3, 2026. According to the data he cited, Berek was entered on the list on June 26, 2002, and obtained his qualifications after taking the oath on September 25, 2002. The certificate listed the periods of registered legal practice from January 1, 2006, to July 31, 2009, and from August 1, 2012, to the date of issuance but did not include a list of civil law contracts. The author quoted responses from the Senate Chancellery and the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, according to which Berek did not hold the position of legal advisor there nor provided legal assistance in that role. The Supreme Audit Office informed, however, that he was a legal advisor and performed duties aligned with the tasks of advisors, although the appointment of a controller as a legal advisor was not possible. Kusznieruk emphasized that the legal qualification of this work and the declared civil law contracts remained in dispute. According to Filipowicz's summary, if the two periods of Berek's work as a legal advisor in NIK are counted, his tenure was 1,345 days, or about 3 years and 8 months; without those periods, it was 387 days related to running a law office. Kusznieruk noted that this was an analysis of available materials and not a binding decision regarding the failure to meet the requirements. He called for determining who in the Sejm was responsible for verification and what documents were examined, indicating that any potential criminal liability under Article 231 § 1 or § 3 of the Penal Code would require demonstrating statutory prerequisites. #TrybunałKonstytucyjny #Prawo #InformacjaPubliczna (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk called on the minister to familiarize himself with the full justification of the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment in case K 34/15 before accusing him of manipulation. He wrote that the Tribunal confirmed the obligation to promptly take the oath, but allowed for exceptional postponement when strictly defined, objective obstacles arise — for the time needed to clarify doubts. He pointed out that this does not mean granting the president any discretionary veto power; however, in his opinion, it undermines the assertion that the president has no decisive voice. Kusznieruk reminded that the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal are elected by the Sejm, but according to Article 4 of the law, they take an oath before the president, and Article 5 connects the taking of the oath with the establishment of an employment relationship. He added that the election itself does not therefore end the procedure, and the difference between appointment and election does not nullify the legal significance of the oath. In his opinion, the rule of law requires considering the entire wording of the provisions, even when it complicates the political message. #praworządność #sędziowie #wyrok (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk asked how to understand the document: as a commendation of unlawful actions against citizens or a politically commissioned attempt to gather data on participants of a legal demonstration. He wrote that the slogan "Murem za mundurem" should not mean unconditional support for every police officer. He pointed out a female officer who, as he noted, was accused of beating, insults, and chewing gum during an intervention. He addressed the commander, demanding an explanation of abuses and accountability instead of appeals for solidarity. #polska #prawaobywatelskie #protest (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that the president also exercises executive power, according to Article 10 of the Constitution, and the Sejm controls the government based on Article 95. Referring to Włodzimierz Czarzasty, he stated that his statement demonstrated a misunderstanding of the constitutional roles of state bodies, and he assessed that the Speaker of the Sejm should know the Constitution before he starts explaining it. #Konstytucja #Polska #Prawo (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk commented on another interview given by Barbara Mróz-Gorgoń to Onet. He wrote that when asked about the reason for the interview, she replied that she wanted to be able to continue living, and in his opinion, the whole situation resembled a "national tragedy." Kusznieruk ironically suggested that Mróz-Gorgoń could be entrusted with a government project, provided with a salary of 50,000 PLN per month and a company car. He also mentioned Radosław Mróz from TVN24 and his wife Justyna Śliwowska-Mróz from TVP, and wrote that taxpayers could bear the costs of such a solution. #Polska #drama #media (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk accused Wielowieyska of accepting the police's version as an established fact and assessing the detained individual before the court's decision. He questioned the legal basis for identifying the man who — as he wrote — was calmly standing at the crosswalk, as well as the attempt to take him aside. He asked whether the refusal to provide personal information justified intervention. Kusznieruk noted that pushing away the officers and fleeing did not exempt the assessment of the legality and proportionality of the force used. He also pointed out the choking of the subdued individual, the vulgarities and threats that — as he wrote — were audible on the recording, and questioned whether such behavior was within the standards of human rights. He added that the court had refused to detain the man, and according to the defense, it concluded that the prosecutor had not even demonstrated a high probability of the alleged act being committed. He characterized this as more than just a routine refusal of detention. He deemed the attribution of a crisis to the detainee based on his behavior as public stigmatization. He also believed that publicly presenting him as an aggressor before the court's decision could be seen as incitement, and that journalists should monitor power, rather than act as its spokesperson. #prawaCzłowieka #Polska #policja (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk accused Joanna Makosa of portraying Piotr as an attacker using a knife, although — as he wrote — such an attack has not been confirmed. He urged her to reveal the wires she claimed to rely on and demanded clarification on whether there was a lack of accuracy or a conscious spreading of false information. He deemed that uncritically basing a serious accusation on a single source indicated a lack of journalistic skill. Kusznieruk wrote that depicting Piotr as a "knife-wielder" could expose him and his family to hostility. He emphasized that threats against anyone were unacceptable, but they did not absolve one from responsibility for their own words. He demanded a clear correction on TVP and public apologies, assessing that attributing it to a mistake was insufficient. He also criticized the funding of public television with taxpayers' money and noted that Piotr and his family were likely not laughing. #dziennikarstwo #media #społeczeństwo (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that the soldier maintained control of the situation when a policewoman pushed him. According to the author, knowing that he was being recorded, he positioned his hands in the camera's field of view, which was intended to complicate any accusation of assault or use of violence against him. #żołnierz #policja #bezpieczeństwo (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk described the court's decision to deny the arrest of Piotr after the protest as a disgrace for the prosecution. He stated that, in his opinion, the lack of high probability of committing a crime meant that the prosecution had not demonstrated the basic premise for applying the arrest. He claimed that Piotr had spent over 50 hours deprived of freedom, and the police conducted a brutal intervention and a request for arrest was submitted without convincing evidence. He noted that the denial of arrest does not mean acquittal, but he considered it a serious signal for the prosecution. He called for the accountability of the police officers and their superiors. #prawo #sprawiedliwość #prokuratura (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk informed that the court refused to temporarily arrest Piotr W., and after more than 50 hours of detention, the man was supposed to return home. He described that Piotr W. was standing at a red light at a pedestrian crossing, after which the police were said to have chased him, subdued him, and pinned him to the floor. According to the account referenced by Kusznieruk, the man lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital in handcuffs. The author noted that — as he wrote — the specific basis for the initiation of the identification has not been publicly clarified to this day. He added that the prosecution requested a temporary arrest, and the court did not agree to this request. Kusznieruk assessed that arrest should be a last resort and called for an investigation into the basis for the intervention, the use of force by the officers, and the circumstances surrounding Piotr W.'s loss of consciousness. #prawo #sprawiedliwość #Polska (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk accused Professor Sadurski of condemning the journalist's vulgar comment more strongly than the convicted politician he defends received a five-year prison sentence for crimes involving corruption. He pointed out that the sentence is not legally binding, but in his view, that does not justify disregarding the findings of the first-instance court. Kusznieruk wrote that Sadurski has the right to criticize uncivil language, but he should also address the seriousness of the actions determined by the court. He added that Sadurski's membership in the Venice Commission remains significant when assessing his public statements, although he does not speak on behalf of that institution. He also criticized the closure of discussions under the pretext of fighting trolls, arguing that it is difficult to reconcile that with openness to arguments. #Polska #korupcja #debata (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that the policeman who allegedly held a restrained person by the throat and threatened them with death during an intervention should be held accountable for potential abuse of power, illegal use of violence, and criminal threats. He emphasized that the uniform does not provide immunity but rather entails special responsibility. He added that the case requires an investigation into both the officer's actions and the legality of the entire arrest, as well as the credibility of the allegations against the detainee. #Prawo #Sprawiedliwość #Policja (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that the revealed recordings raised questions about the reason for the police check on the man who was, as he suggested, connected to the protest. According to his reconstruction, the officers followed the man for several dozen meters, demanded his personal information without providing a specific reason for the check, and then incapacitated him inside the building. Kusznieruk noted that the man pushed the officers away and fled inside, but he believed that this did not explain the earlier decision to conduct a check. The author claimed that the man lost consciousness during the intervention, and the knife found with him was not presented as having been used. He also questioned the proportionality of the force used and whether the man deliberately attacked the policewoman when the window broke. Furthermore, he described that several hours later, the detained man was informed that he could meet with lawyer Magdalena Leszczyńska if he provided his details. According to Kusznieruk, the man did not know the lawyer and did not want to see her, while the police considered this a refusal to contact a defense attorney. Kusznieruk also criticized the statement by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who — as he wrote — linked the matter to President Nawrocki. He asked whether the police acted on the orders of superiors, collected data on demonstration participants, and previously observed the man. He directed questions to the Polish Police and the Ministry of Interior and Administration regarding who ordered the identification of Piotr and on what basis. He warned that if the identification of protesters occurred without legal grounds, it could mean using the state apparatus to control citizens. #Polska #Policja #protesty (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk stated that the footage from the body camera raised serious suspicions that the man may have been previously monitored as someone associated with the protest organization. He claimed that the police had been trying from the beginning to establish his identity and asked whether they were acting on orders, who issued those orders, and on what legal basis. Kusznieruk emphasized that the systematic gathering of data by the police on individuals participating in legal protests, without specific grounds for identification, would signify practices characteristic of an authoritarian state. He pointed out that participating in a protest is not a crime, and the police should protect the constitutional freedoms of citizens. He asked the police who ordered the identification of this man and why the officers were interested in him even before the intervention. #protesty #wolność #Polska (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk stated that the recording from the police officer's camera raises questions about the reasons why the officers wanted to identify the man, as well as about his aggressive reaction and attempt to escape. He claimed that at the moment the window was broken, the man was already incapacitated on the ground, and asked how he could have then caused the policewoman's head to hit the window. He appealed to the Chief Police Headquarters to present the facts instead of further versions of events. #policja #bezpieczeństwo #prawaobywatelskie (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk reached out to Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Minister Marcin Kierwiński, and the Chief Police Commander with a question about the responsibility for the treatment of the detained Piotr W. He referred to a statement from the detainee, in which he described a lack of contact with his wife and designated defenders, the non-receipt of a copy of the detention protocol, as well as head injuries, dizziness, pain, and bruised wrists. He also accused the authorities of failing to provide appropriate medical diagnostics. Kusznieruk inquired about recordings from body cameras and the complete medical documentation, as well as why the detainee was cut off from his family and defenders. He called for an explanation of the allegations, and in case even part of them is confirmed, for immediate oversight actions and consequences for those responsible. He indicated that Tusk bears political responsibility for the government's actions, Kierwiński for supervising the Police, and the Chief Commander for the functioning of the subordinate formation. He emphasized that the Police should adhere to the law, and the responsibility for overseeing the services should not be limited to press conferences. #PrawaCzłowieka #Polska #Policja (translated)