Search

✅ OFFICIAL: FC Barcelona responds to the statement from Real Madrid. UEFA has not initiated any new disciplinary proceedings against FC Barcelona. The proceedings began in 2023 with the appointment of two investigators, who have since taken actions they deemed necessary. The club has always complied with all their requests. These proceedings have not been resumed because they were never closed. UEFA's statement confirms the receipt of documentation sent by Real Madrid and its assessment by investigators as part of the ongoing investigation. The statement explicitly refers twice to the ongoing investigation and review. Therefore, it does not announce the initiation, resumption, or reactivation of any case, nor does it contain any statements regarding the substance or value of the submitted documentation. It is up to the investigators to decide what actions they consider appropriate in relation to this documentation. To date, they have not approached FC Barcelona with any new requests nor have they relayed Real Madrid's complaint to the Club. If they do, the Club will respond accordingly, as it has done so far. According to the applicable regulations, this act is subject to the resolution of the criminal proceedings ongoing in Spain and will remain there. Since the beginning of the investigation, FC Barcelona has been obtaining UEFA licenses without objection and has participated in UEFA competitions. [@FCBarcelona] (translated)

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)

This statement by the current Minister of Justice (and former civil judge!) is shameful. The representative of the executive authority essentially suggests that judges appointed after 2017 are less intelligent, and that if @RomanowskiPL were judging the case, it would not have been dismissed "for substantive reasons" if an alleged old judge were presiding. Mr. Minister @w_zurek, before you go telling the media about the lack of substantive grounds for issuing an iron letter, please familiarize yourself with the jurisprudence of the Appeal Courts in Kraków (e.g., II AKz 523/22), Gdańsk (e.g., II AKz 222/22), or Warsaw (e.g., II AKz 1175/25), and then say that the prosecutor's objection blocks the possibility of issuing the letter. You have dedicated many years of your professional life to fighting against @ZiobroPL and you had the Constitution on your lips, yet now you find the "Ziobro" provision suitable, and you dislike the pro-constitutional interpretation of the regulations, although before 2023 your circle spoke completely differently than you do today. And for how you allow yourself to "ride" on judges publicly due to the fact that you do not like their rulings, you should simply be sued by them. If they do, I will cheer them on. (translated)

I see that there is a spin about attacking Judge Mielcarek's family. Just a moment. After all, it was Mielcarek himself who publicly wrote about his family in the context of opposition to vaccinations. He himself introduced his family into the public discussion as an argument. And now a reminder of his own words is supposed to be an attack on his family? Wtf. (translated)

WHEN TO STEAL, THEN MILLIONS. WHEN TO MOVE, THEN POLISH LAW. WHEN TO COMBINE, THEN IRON LETTER. Romanowski received an iron letter despite the prosecutor's objection. The decision is not final. You, ordinary Pole, be late with a fine, tax, or installment. The state will find you without any problem. Paragraph, interest, bailiff, no philosophy. But when it comes to a politician, big money, immunities, and expensive law firms, suddenly the law becomes as flexible as an old pair of underpants. Romanowski is not convicted in this case, and the court has to decide about guilt. But looking at this circus, it's hard not to ask, does the same law apply to him and an ordinary Pole? Well, fucking no. And just completely on the sidelines, what the hell do we need all this alphabet of services, agencies, commands, and international cooperation for, when a person subject to the European Arrest Warrant can sit abroad for months, and the Polish state can't bring him before a Polish court? And it will turn out that he will run in the elections, enter the Sejm, and we will start another season titled: "AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING TO US." Because in Poland, the little one has a paragraph. And the politician has an interpretation, lawyers, time, and if necessary, even an iron letter. (translated)

Judge Mielcarek previously shared the post by Lawyers for Poland, in which the actions of the prosecutor's office against Romanowski were called a disgraceful action and a farce, and the actions of the police were compared to a totalitarian state. The judge, who publicly shared such unambiguously engaged content regarding Romanowski, should have recused himself from his case. He did not do that. Today he decided to issue Romanowski an iron letter despite the prosecutor's objection. The decision is not final. It speaks for itself. (translated)

Romanowski, as deputy minister under Ziobro, co-created a reality in which PiS included in the law that a coercive letter is not issued in the event of a prosecutor's objection. Today, Romanowski is a suspect in the FS case. The prosecutor says no, and the coercive letter is issued to him by Konrad Mielcarek. A neo-judge promoted to the District Court by the neo-KRS, whose participation in the composition of the Court of Appeal was already considered a problem with the proper composition of the court. Mielcarek deemed the provision introduced during Romanowski's time to be unconstitutional and did not apply it. PiS first arranged the state to its liking. And when their own law caught their own people in the rear, suddenly someone remembered the constitution. Bareja wouldn't have pushed this level of irony. Not a step back, Mr. Prosecutor Żurek. (translated)

Mr. Minister, here I have a serious problem with your entry - and I'm not talking about Mr. Romanowski, but about the law. Article 281 § 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code indeed states that in preparatory proceedings, a closed list may be issued at the request of the prosecutor or in the absence of his objection. However, that is where, in this case, the legal analysis does not end. The Court of Appeals in Gdańsk already on March 29, 2022, II AKz 222/22, ruled that the prosecutor's objection does not bind the court. The same position was held by the Court of Appeals in Szczecin. What is particularly important - the Court of Appeals in Warsaw in the case II AKz 1037/24 indicated that despite the wording of Article 281 § 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is not bound by the prosecutor's objection. The same applies to the Regional Court in Warsaw, XII Kp 2497/25. So we are not dealing with an interpretation invented today for Romanowski. This dispute has existed in the jurisdiction since 2022 🤷‍♂️ The prosecution can appeal the ruling and present its own arguments. However, the Minister of Justice, a former judge, should perhaps be particularly careful before labeling the court's decision political after an unfavorable ruling for the prosecution, describing the judge as from Ziobro's stable, and reducing his ruling to the principle of "our own protect their own." I would not engage in the rhetoric of the other side here, for which we consistently criticize it 🤷‍♂️ Because this is no longer a polemic with the interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is attributing political motivation to the judge in a specific, ongoing case 🤷‍♂️ And one more thing - the Constitution is not a shield behind which a judge can hide. It is the highest law of the Republic, Mr. Żurek. Appeal the ruling. Present legal arguments. Let the appellate court decide - this is just the way I would like to see it. This is how the rule of law should look - also when we do not like the court's ruling 🤷‍♂️ (translated)

❗️EXPLANATION In connection with the politicians' spin regarding the prosecutor's opposition to the issuance of the ironclad letter, which allegedly prevented the District Court from issuing such a letter, I present statements from court rulings indicating that this is an ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT understanding of the provision of Article 281 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 👉🏻As noted by the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk in its ruling of March 29, 2022, case file II AKz 222/22: “The understanding of the provision of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such a way that the prosecutor's opposition would be binding on the district court would lead to systemic inconsistency and would at the same time be an expression of the prosecutor's privilege over the suspect, while reducing the district court to the role of a subordinate entity to the prosecutor's decision. Such a solution would be extremely ineffective and contradict the requirements of procedural economy, which speaks against involving in a specific proceeding as a procedural body an entity that does not have full powers to resolve the issue at stake in that proceeding. If the legislator intended to grant the prosecutor a decisive voice regarding the issuance of an ironclad letter, considering that they should be equipped with that competence as the body conducting the preparatory proceedings and responsible for its effects, they should have done so explicitly by modifying the provisions on functional competence for issuing an ironclad letter in preparatory proceedings. Since this has not been done, leaving this decision in the hands of the district court, the current regulatory provisions - given their lack of clarity and their systemic inconsistency - should be interpreted on the assumption that primacy should be given to the interpretation taking into account systemic assumptions, including rules resulting from the principles of adversariality and equality of the parties. In summary, the systemic and functional interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leads to the conclusion that the district court considering the suspect's application for the issuance of an ironclad letter in pre-trial proceedings is not bound by the prosecutor's opposition.” 👉🏻Also, the Court of Appeal in Krakow in the case with case file II AKz 523/22 in the justification of the ruling of February 7, 2023: “Analyzing the linguistic interpretation of the aforementioned provision, it is necessary to refer to the designation of the word opposition, which is 'disagreement, protest' (according to SJP PWN - internet service), 'resisting in any form' (...). Also, in the systemic context of the criminal procedure act, 'opposition' means a lack of consent to a specific decision or procedural action and entails a negatory or cassatory effect. This is also how this institution is perceived by W. Hermeliński and B. Nita-Światłowska, indicating that after the amendment the prosecutor was supposed (allegedly) to have the possibility of 'blocking the court with their statement of disagreement on the issuance of an ironclad letter' (...). Therefore, it cannot be acknowledged that the legislator in the amendment to the procedural law on April 20, 2021, established a separate form of 'opposition' and granted the prosecutor shaping powers, i.e., the ability to bind the court with conditions under which the court would consider the suspect's application, especially in the context of applying and shaping the financial guarantee indicated in Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is also supported by the purposive and logical interpretation of the mentioned regulation. The institution of opposition contained in Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of an extraordinary nature and was intended by the legislator to limit the judicial independence of the court. Adopting the concept of the possibility of conditioning the opposition on exonerating conditions would lead to a further limitation of the judicial independence of the court than in the case of a literal reading of the provision. (...) In summary - the prosecutor's opposition indicated in Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has a purely negatory character and cannot be burdened with any reservations. This does not take away from the prosecutor's ability to formulate a specific procedural position regarding the conditions for the issuance of an ironclad letter - nevertheless, the court ruling on the subject of the ironclad letter is not bound by them.” (translated)

Donald Trump zdecydowanie sprzeciwił się spowolnieniu rozwoju sztucznej inteligencji i współpracy z Chinami, twierdząc, że USA muszą prowadzić w wyścigu technologicznym, jednocześnie obiecując, że AI będzie używana głównie do pozytywnych celów. #sztucznainteligencja #DonaldTrump #Chiny

111 000 PODPISÓW 15 000 roboczogodzin wolontariatu 20+ punktów zbiórki w 18 dzielnicach Warszawy Bez gotowych struktur. Bez zawodowych działaczy. Bez potężnego finansowania. Bez realnego wsparcia partii politycznych i mediów Każdej organizacji społecznej życzę takiego „fiaska” W ciągu zaledwie 60 dni stworzyliśmy z niczego sprawną organizację miejską, która zdołała zebrać 111 000 podpisów Warszawiaków i Warszawianek. Wznieciliśmy skalę społecznej mobilizacji, której Stolica nie widziała od lat. Nasza akcja była przede wszystkim wyrazem sprzeciwu wobec sposobu zarządzania Warszawą: partyjniactwa, kumoterstwa, niegospodarności oraz traktowania urzędu prezydenta miasta jako trampoliny do najwyższych urzędów w państwie. I widzimy, że już teraz nasza akcja przyniosła w tym zakresie pozytywny efekt. W Prezydenta @trzaskowski_ w ostatnich tygodniach wstąpił zadziwiający, niespotykany przez ostatnie 8 lat zapał do zajmowania się problemami miasta i jego mieszkańców. Należy mieć nadzieję, że wraz z końcem zbiórki ta energia nie wyparuje nagle i nie powróci znany tryb „bywania w Ratuszu raz-dwa razy w tygodniu” Przez ostatnie dwa miesiące byliśmy w całej Warszawie. Także tam, gdzie wielu uważało, że naszego wniosku nikt nie będzie chciał podpisywać -chociażby w Miasteczku Wilanów. A jednak ludzie podpisywali. Wielokrotnie słyszeliśmy przy tym: „Głosowałem na Trzaskowskiego, ale mam już dosyć”. I to jest właśnie jeden z najważniejszych rezultatów naszej akcji. Warszawiacy zobaczyli, że można i należy otwarcie dyskutować o sposobie zarządzania miastem, krytykować jego władze i oczekiwać od nich znacznie więcej. Czasy biernej akceptacji dla standardów rodem z oddziału ratunkowego w Szpitalu Południowym bezpowrotnie minęły. Jestem niezwykle dumny z tego, co zbudowaliśmy. Szczególnie dumny jestem z naszych wolontariuszy, którzy poświęcili swój czas pro publico bono - często angażując się społecznie po raz pierwszy. Jestem pewien, że tego potencjału nie zmarnujemy. 🟨Stołeczna Operacja Referendalna się skończyła. 🟥Stołeczna Organizacja Rozwoju właśnie się zaczyna. Będziemy patrzeć władzom Warszawy na ręce. Będziemy wskazywać problemy. Będziemy proponować rozwiązania. Będziemy zabiegać o interes WSZYSTKICH mieszkańców Warszawy. Tymczasem warszawska opozycja, na czele z Prawem i Sprawiedliwością, pokazała bierność, apatię i - najwyraźniej - zadowolenie z obecnego stanu rzeczy. Kierując się kunktatorską logiką, zdecydowali się zignorować oddolny, obywatelski ruch sprzeciwu. Trudno. Ich czas i tak się skończył. My dopiero się rozkręcamy. Dziękuję wszystkim STU JEDENASTU TYSIĄCOM mieszkańców Warszawy, którzy poparli naszą inicjatywę. Działamy dalej. Dla Was ✌️🇵🇱 #Warszawa #Społeczność #AkcjaObywatelska

Kategorycznie nie zgadzam się z argumentacją zawartą we wskazanych wyżej uchwałach Sejmu i Senatu i w związku z tym nie potwierdzam wygaśnięcia kadencji członków Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i TelewizjiKarol Nawrocki, prezydent Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, wydał oficjalne oświadczenie, w którym stanowczo sprzeciwił się decyzji Sejmu i Senatu dotyczącej odrzucenia sprawozdania Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji za 2025 rok. #KRRiT #Nawrocki #SejmSenat

Pamiętacie co to siędziało kiedy Trump zapowiedział wstrzymanie pieniędzy dla ONZ. Ileż to było pomstowania na jego nieodpowiedzialność. Mijają dwa lata i Kanclerz Friedrich Merz z pięcioma innymi przywódcami UE grozi zablokowaniem unijnego budżetu, jeśli KE nie zetnie "setek miliardów" euro cięć wydatków. Wielka piątka sprzeciwia się zwiększaniu liczby personelu oraz unijnej biurokracji, żąda, by instytucje realizowały zadania przy dotychczasowym poziomie zatrudnienia. Zamiast utrzymywać „XIX-wieczną strukturę wydatków”, kasa ma iść na obronność, konkurencyjność , kontrole migracji oraz innowacje. Żadnego wspólnego długu i bezpośrednich podatków do unijnego budżetu.: oszczędności mają dotknąć „wszystkich obszarów” co w praktyce oznacza konieczność redukcji planowanych wzrostów w funduszach spójności czy dopłatach rolniczych. #UE #budżet #oszczędności

Emocje powoli opadają. Moja kampania się skończyła, więc czas spokojnie, metodycznie przyjrzeć się wynikom📈. Nie tylko samym procentom, ale także warunkom, w których przyszło nam walczyć. Kraków od lat jest dla PiS trudnym miastem. Analizując poparcie w Krakowie w zestawieniu z wynikami ogólnopolskimi robi się ciekawie. W wyborach do Sejmu w 2023 roku, do Parlamentu Europejskiego w 2024 roku i w pierwszej turze wyborów prezydenckich w 2025 roku wynik Prawa i Sprawiedliworci lub popieranego przez partię kandydata wynosił tutaj około 70% wyniku ogólnopolskiego. Czyli jeśli PiS w Polsce miał poparcie 40%, to w Krakowie około 28%, jeśli w Polsce było 30% to w Krakowie 21%. Dzisiaj średnia ośmiu zestawionych sondaży, daje PiS 20,62%. Gdyby więc uwzględnić to statystycznie mój wynik powinien wynosić 14,32%, bo jest to te historycznie udowodnione 70% poparcia ogólnopolskiego. Ale wynik jest wyższy! Uzyskałem 17,50%. Ponad 3 punkty procentowe więcej. Około 21% ponad poziom wynikający z tej historycznej proporcji. To nie jest prognoza ani porównanie identycznych wyborów, ale jest to konkretny punkt odniesienia. I na jego tle nasz wynik jest wyraźnie lepszy. Głosowało na mnie wielu wyborców, którzy na PiS nie głosowali. Jestem im wdzięczny, że wybrali konkretnego czlowieka, kierując się wiarygodnością i aktywnością, a nie tylko znaczkiem. Warto pamiętać też o kontekście. Kiedy w 2018 roku startowała Małgorzata Wassermann, wrześniowy sondaż CBOS dla Polski pokazywał PiS 43%, a jej wynik w Krakowie wyniósł 31,88%. To pojedynczy odczyt, który dobrze przypomina, w jak innych warunkach politycznych odbywały się tamte wybory. PiS był na fali, odnosił sukcesy. Zobaczcie na wykresy- żółty po lewej stronie to różnica poparcia, dzisiaj jest minimalna, co pokazuje że dobrze wykonaliśmy pracę. Dziś mieliśmy również znacznie silniejszego Łukasza Gibałę, budującego wizerunek kandydata sprzeciwu wobec miejskiej władzy i partyjnym centralom („każdy byle nie ktoś z KO”). Sięgał także po głosy prawicy. Nie pomógł rozłam w naszym środowisku. Nie pomogły sygnały płynące od z Rozwoju Plus, gdy jeden poseł publicznie mówił, że „trzyma kciuki” za Gibałę. Mimo tego potrafiliśmy zainteresować naszą kandydaturą również ludzi spoza PiS. Według sondażu głosowali na mnie także wyborcy Konfederacji, a nawet Lewicy czy Koalicji Obywatelskiej. Pokazuje to, że moje poparcie nie zamykało się w jednym partyjnym środowisku. Nie osiągnęliśmy celu, jakim była druga tura. Ale nie przekreśla to pracy, którą wykonaliśmy, ani wyniku lepszego od historycznego punktu odniesienia. W tych warunkach uważam go za sukces naszej aktywności i wiarygodności. Rozmów z mieszkańcami. Obecności na osiedlach. Lat pracy, a nie tylko kilku tygodni kampanii. 44 772 osoby obdarzyły mnie zaufaniem. Dziękuję każdej z nich. Nie przyjechałem do Krakowa na wybory i nie wyjadę po wyborach. Dalej będę tutaj pracował. PS. Nie kandydowałem, by uzyskać stanowisko, dlatego nie aspiruję do funkcji wiceprezydenta. #Kraków #wybory #Polityka