Mr. Grzegorz, I read the entire justification. And I agree with one thing – legal analysis cannot be replaced with the label of a "neo-judge," because that is not an argument 🤷♂️ However, the justification itself, although extensive and internally organized, in my opinion leaves two very serious legal problems. The first concerns Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision states that in preparatory proceedings, a "blanket warrant" can be issued at the request of the prosecutor or in the absence of their objection. Here, the prosecutor filed an objection. The court does not challenge the wording of the provision. It consciously deviates from it, considering that the binding objection of the prosecutor would violate the court's jurisdictional independence. It references Article 8 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 178 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the KPP, and part of the case law of appellate courts. This is a legal argument. But there is also an opposing line of case law, based precisely on the linguistic interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the court itself notes in the justification. I wrote about this yesterday. So it is not the case that there is no problem. There is a very serious dispute about the limits of interpretation contra legem and whether the court can practically deprive the premise, which the legislator explicitly included in the provision. The second problem I have is with the prognostic assessment. The court acknowledges that Romanowski left Poland, did not appear for the hearing concerning the temporary arrest, was outside the reach of Polish authorities, and even informed in his own application that he has a passport issued under a different identity 🤷♂️ The court considers these circumstances to be burdensome but then assumes that they cannot determine the assessment because one should look at it primarily prospectively. 🤔 And this is where I have the greatest doubt. The prediction of a suspect's future behavior does not occur in a vacuum. Its foundational material is, after all, their past behavior. 🤷♂️ If a person involved in the proceedings previously did not comply with procedural mechanisms, left the country, and remained outside the reach of the authorities, then their later declaration that from this moment they will comply with the conditions of the "blanket warrant" must be subjected to particularly rigorous assessment. The court may conclude that despite this, the risk has currently diminished. But it should convincingly demonstrate why specific past behaviors have lost their prognostic significance. Because if we are to predict a person’s future behavior while disregarding their past behavior, then a rather fundamental question arises - on what basis are we actually building this prediction? 🤷♂️ Therefore, I would not dismiss this ruling with the label of a neo-judge, but I would also not say that the problem ends with the justification sounding rational. A rationally constructed justification can still lead to a legally debatable result. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of case we are dealing with here. The argumentation of the court is clear and can be recounted, but both the way of breaking the literal wording of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prognostic assessment of the suspect's behavior leave significant legal doubts. If I were to rule on this matter, I would not grant the application. Firstly – due to the prosecutor's objection and the content of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly – even accepting a different interpretation of this provision, I would not find sufficient grounds for a positive prognostic assessment. This is not about punishing Romanowski for the past. It is about assessing whether his past behavior allows rationally to assume that from this moment he will respect the obligations arising from the "blanket warrant." In my opinion – it does not allow 🤷♂️ And that is precisely why there is an appellate review. (translated)
