CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF06EED9B { height:108.05pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s53880C60 { height:128.35pt } .sBBF3F5B5 { height:102.45pt } .s1A80C6DB { height:101.75pt } .sD525AF69 { height:114.5pt } .s93C426AD { height:104.9pt } .s5438CED6 { height:118.55pt } .sC9AE2748 { height:121.9pt } .sB4728297 { height:122.1pt } .sBBF3F450 { height:107.45pt } .s6D76B7A7 { height:116.65pt } .sAE9BC6F5 { height:102.7pt } .sF3EAAF4A { height:103.5pt } .s327E3B04 { height:116.4pt } .s8BE0B076 { height:103.25pt } .s5765B82B { height:102.65pt } .s3E27CEF5 { height:109.55pt } .sBF4525A { height:102.6pt } .sBBF3F4D4 { height:103.45pt } .sAD1F2EB9 { height:102.85pt } .s93C4276F { height:102.9pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 53632/16 Marzena KOWALSKA against Poland and 37 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11   July   2017 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants were prosecutors at the Prosecutor General’s Office (4), the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office (2), the appellate prosecutor’s offices (30) and the military regional prosecutor’s office (2). 4.     On 28 January 2016 the Polish Parliament enacted new legislation on the prosecution service (“the Prosecution Service Act” – Prawo o prokuraturze ). 5.     On the same date it enacted the Prosecution Service (Introductory Provisions) Act ( Przepisy wprowadzające ustawę – Prawo o prokuraturze – “the Introductory Provisions Act”), which repealed the Prosecution Service Act 1985. 6.     The principal provisions of both Acts entered into force on 4 March 2016. 7.     By letters of various dates between 8 March and 28 April 2016, the Prosecutor General informed the applicants that, pursuant to respectively sections 36(1) and (2), 39(1) or 41(1) of the Introductory Provisions Act, they were to be transferred to different, lower posts within the ordinary units of the prosecution service. The applicants were further informed that they would retain the right to the level of remuneration they had acquired in their previous posts. The relevant details are set out in the appendix. 8.     Some of the prosecutors asked the Prosecutor General to reconsider the decisions on their transfer. In reply, they were informed by the State Prosecutor’s Office that the Prosecutor General had exercised his discretionary powers in respect of those decisions and that they could not be reconsidered. 9.     One of the applicants (Mr Wojciech Dutkowski) wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General contesting the decision on his transfer and requesting factual reasons justifying it. In a reply of 5 October 2016, the State Prosecutor’s Office informed him that the Prosecutor General’s decision did not need to be reasoned. He was further informed that the legislature did not envisage a specific appeal procedure against that type of decision. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Prosecution Service Act 1985 10.     The Prosecution Service Act of 20 June 1985 (as amended) set out general principles concerning the structure, functions and organisation of the prosecution service. The ordinary prosecution service consisted of prosecutors at the Prosecutor General’s Office, the appellate prosecutor’s offices, regional prosecutor’s offices and district prosecutor’s offices. 2.     Prosecution Service Act 2016 11.     The Prosecution Service Bill, endorsed by members of parliament from the majority party, was submitted to the Sejm on 24 December 2015. It was enacted on 28 January 2016. 12.     The Prosecution Service Act provides that the Prosecutor General is the highest authority in the prosecution service. The functions of the Prosecutor General are carried out by the Minister of Justice (section 1(2)). 13.     The prosecution service is composed of, inter alia , the Prosecutor General, the State Prosecutor, other deputies of the Prosecutor General and prosecutors of the ordinary units of the prosecution service (section 1(1)). 14.     The Prosecutor General manages the operation of the prosecution service directly or through the State Prosecutor (the first deputy of the Prosecutor General) and other deputies of the Prosecutor General (section 13(1)). The Prosecutor General is the hierarchical superior of all prosecutors (section 13(2)). 15.     Section 16 lists the ordinary units of the prosecution service as follows: the State Prosecutor’s Office ( Prokuratura Krajowa ); provincial prosecutor’s offices ( prokuratury regionalne ); regional prosecutor’s offices ( prokuratury okręgowe ); and district prosecutor’s offices ( prokuratury rejonowe ). 16.     Section 101(1) provides that a prosecutor is entitled to institute proceedings before a labour court in respect of claims related to his or her service ( sprawy o roszczenia ze stosunku służbowego ). 3.     Prosecution Service (Introductory Provisions) Act 2016 (“the Introductory Provisions Act”) 17.     The Introductory Provisions Act abolished the Prosecutor General’s Office and replaced it with the State Prosecutor’s Office (section 26). Similarly, the appellate prosecutor’s offices were replaced by provincial prosecutor’s offices ( prokuratury regionalne ; section 29). 18.     The Prosecutor General, on an application from the State Prosecutor, appoints prosecutors to the State Prosecutor’s Office from among, inter alia , the prosecutors of the former Prosecutor General’s Office, the former appellate prosecutor’s offices and the regional prosecutor’s offices (section 35(1)). 19.     Section 36(1) of the Act provides as follows: “The Prosecutor General shall transfer from the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office prosecutors whom he did not appoint as prosecutors at the State Prosecutor’s Office, to other posts in the ordinary units of the prosecution service, with the right to retain the title ‘prosecutor of the former Prosecutor General’s Office’ or ‘prosecutor of the former Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office’ and the level of remuneration acquired at the post held hitherto, being guided by their former place of residence or place of service.” 20.     Following an application from the State Prosecutor, the Prosecutor General appoints prosecutors to the provincial prosecutor’s offices from among the prosecutors of the former appellate prosecutor’s offices and the regional prosecutor’s offices (section 38(1)). The Prosecutor General transfers the prosecutors of the former appellate prosecutor’s offices, whom he did not appoint to the provincial prosecutor’s offices, to other posts within the ordinary units of the prosecution service (section 39(1)). The Prosecutor General transfers the prosecutors of the former military regional prosecutor’s office ( wojskowe prokuratury okręgowe ), whom he did not appoint to the regional prosecutor’s offices, to other posts within the ordinary units of the prosecution service (section 41(1)). 4.     The Ombudsman’s application to the Constitutional Court 21.     In his application of 4 May 2016 to the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman challenged the constitutionality of, inter alia , sections 36(1) and 38(1) of the Introductory Provisions Act. He argued that those provisions were incompatible, inter alia , with Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution, which provided for the right of access to a court. 22.     The Ombudsman submitted that the abolition of the Prosecutor’s General Office and of appellate prosecutor’s offices was linked to a sort of vetting of the prosecutors who had previously held posts in those units of the prosecution service. Under the Introductory Provisions Act, the Prosecutor General, acting on an application from the State Prosecutor, was entitled to decide arbitrarily whether a prosecutor was to be appointed to a newly established unit of the prosecution service or whether he or she was to be transferred to another, lower post. In the Ombudsman’s view, the Introductory Provisions Act allowed for the transfer of prosecutors to lower posts without establishing any control mechanism providing for a check on the exercise of the Prosecutor General’s discretionary power in this respect. 5.     The Supreme Court’s decision of 14 July 2016 (no. III PO 3/16) 23.     On the basis of section 36 of the Introductory Provisions Act, the Prosecutor General transferred a prosecutor, M.W., from the Prosecutor General’s Office to a post at a district prosecutor’s office. Challenging that decision directly before the Supreme Court, M.W. argued that the Introductory Provisions Act excluded the possibility of applying for a judicial review of the Prosecutor General’s decision issued under section 36. She further argued that that lacuna should be filled by reference to section 75(4) of the Courts Organisation Act 2001, which entitled judges transferred to a different post without their consent to appeal to the Supreme Court against the relevant decision of the Minister of Justice. 24.     In its decision of 14 July 2016 (no. III PO 3/16), the Supreme Court dismissed M.W.’s appeal as inadmissible in law. It held that neither the Prosecution Service Act nor the Introductory Provisions Act provided for the right to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against a decision taken under section 36 of the Introductory Provisions Act. 25.     The Supreme Court noted that in accordance with the established case-law, a prosecutor was entitled to institute proceedings before a labour court in respect of claims related to his or her service. That rule was confirmed in section 101(1) of the Prosecution Service Act . The Supreme Court further reiterated its case-law that a prosecutor was an employee within the meaning of the Labour Code. Claims related to a prosecutor’s service or his or her dismissal from the post were civil claims which were to be asserted before the labour courts. 26 .     The Supreme Court held that the same rule applied to cases in which a prosecutor contested the lawfulness and appropriateness of the Prosecutor General’s decision taken under section 36 of the Introductory Provisions Act. Such a “decision” resulted in a prosecutor’s transfer to a different post, which entailed, in substance, a change in the conditions of service in respect of the place of service and the type of duties to be carried out. The Supreme Court also noted that section 36 of the Introductory Provisions Act contained the criteria of “the place of residence” and “the place of service”. A labour court was thus able to verify whether those criteria had been duly taken into account in any change in the conditions of service. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Prosecutor General’s decision under section 36 of the Introductory Provisions Act could be contested before the labour courts in accordance with the general rule concerning those courts’ jurisdiction over claims related to a prosecutor’s service, as set out in section 101(1) of the Prosecution Service Act 2016. COMPLAINTS 27.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that neither the Prosecution Service Act nor the Introductory Provisions Act provided for the right to bring judicial proceedings against a decision transferring a prosecutor to a lower post pursuant to sections 36(1) and (2), 39(1) or 41(1) of the Introductory Provisions Act. They submitted that decisions in their cases had affected their civil rights within the meaning of Article 6   §   1. In the applicants’ view, the arbitrary decisions on their transfer had been taken in connection with a superficial reform of the prosecution service. The reform had also been aimed at vetting and demoting certain prosecutors. The applicants had not been provided with any reasons justifying their demotion, which had prevented them from identifying legal remedies to contest the impugned decisions. 28.     The applicants further complained that they had been deprived of an effective remedy with regard to their demotion. The lack of an effective remedy had further entailed a breach of their right to respect for their private life and the right to property. They alleged that the demotion had damaged their reputation and entailed the freezing of their remuneration. The applicants relied on Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 29.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides that the present applications should be joined. B.     Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 30.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 that they had had no right to institute court proceedings against the Prosecutor General’s decisions, taken respectively under sections 36(1) and (2), 39(1) or 41(1) of the Introductory Provisions Act, transferring them to a lower post. 31.     In their view, parliament had intentionally adopted rules allowing the arbitrary and immediate demotion of prosecutors without the obligation to provide reasons. Their demotion should be considered as an attack on the independence of prosecutors. In addition, their transfer to a lower post was a more severe consequence than any of the applicable disciplinary sanctions, except for removal from office. 32 .     The Court is not required to determine the issue of applicability of Article 6 § 1 to the present cases as this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 33.     It is a fundamental feature of the machinery of protection established by the Convention that it is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights. This Court is concerned with supervision of the implementation by Contracting States of their obligations under the Convention. It should not take on the role of Contracting States, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined therein are respected and protected on a domestic level. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is based on the assumption – reflected in Article 13 of the Convention, with which it has close affinity – that there is an effective remedy available in respect of the alleged violation. The rule is therefore an indispensable part of the functioning of this system of protection (see, among other authorities, Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 69, 25 March 2014). 34.     States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system, and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see, among many authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16   September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV). It should be emphasised that the Court is not a court of first instance; it does not have the capacity, nor is it appropriate to its function as an international court, to adjudicate on large numbers of cases which require the finding of basic facts or the calculation of monetary compensation – both of which should, as a matter of principle and effective practice, be the domain of domestic jurisdictions (see Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos.   46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010). 35.     The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies therefore requires an applicant to make normal use of remedies which are available and sufficient in respect of his or her Convention grievances. The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Akdivar and Others , cited above, § 66). 36.     However, as indicated above, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective. In addition, in accordance with the “generally recognised rules of international law”, there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his or her disposal. 37.     To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs and must offer reasonable prospects of success (see Balogh v. Hungary , no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004, and Sejdovic v.   Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006 ‑ II). However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Akdivar and Others , cited above, § 71, and Scoppola v.   Italy   (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009). 38.     The applicants alleged that they had not had the right to contest before a court the Prosecutor General’s decisions taken respectively under sections 36(1), 39(1) or 41(1) of the Introductory Provisions Act, whereby they had been transferred to a lower post within the prosecution service (see   the appendix below). 39.     However, the Supreme Court examined a case of a prosecutor who had been affected by the same measure as the applicants and had claimed that judicial review of the Prosecutor General’s decisions had been excluded. In that case, the Supreme Court found that a decision taken under section 36 of the Introductory Provisions Act, which entailed a change in the conditions of service, could be reviewed by a labour court in accordance with the general rule set out in section 101(1) of the Prosecution Service Act (see paragraph 26 above). That provision stipulated that the labour courts had jurisdiction to hear claims related to a prosecutor’s service. 40.     The Court has already found that a prosecutor transferred to a lower post pursuant to the Prosecutor General’s decision under section 36(1) of the the Introductory Provisions Act was required to institute proceedings before a labour court (see Bilewicz v. Poland (dec.), no.   53626/16, 22 June 2017, § 39). Having regard to its decision in the Bilewicz case, the Court finds that the applicants failed to have recourse to a remedy provided by the domestic law as indicated by the Supreme Court. The applicants did not submit any arguments with regard to alleged lack of effectiveness or adequacy of the impugned remedy. The Court considers that it would be inconsistent with the   subsidiarity principle to accept their application for substantive examination without requiring them first to submit the substance of their Convention claim to the domestic authorities (see Vučković and   Others , cited above, § 90). 41.     This ruling is without prejudice to the applicants’ right to lodge a fresh application under Article 34 of the Convention if they are unable to obtain appropriate redress in domestic proceedings instituted under section 101(1) of the Prosecution Service Act (see, mutatis mutandis , Pikielny and   Others v. Poland , no. 3524/05, § 62, 18 September 2012). 42.     Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. C.     Complaints under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 43.     The applicants complained that they had been deprived of an effective remedy with regard to their demotion. They alleged that they had had no possibility to institute any proceedings, be it judicial or before a higher prosecutor, to challenge the decisions to demote them. 44.     Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that their demotion had damaged their professional standing and their reputation. In addition, it had prevented them from seeking promotion and excluded them from participation in the prosecution service’s self-governing bodies. They further alleged an arbitrary violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They maintained that their demotion had resulted in the freezing of their remuneration and interfered with their legitimate expectation to receive a higher remuneration in line with increasing seniority in his post. 45.     The Court reiterates that in so far as the Convention right asserted by the applicants is a “civil right” – and the Court assumes that this is the case – Article 6 § 1 is deemed to constitute a lex   specialis in relation to Article 13. Its safeguards, implying the full panoply of a judicial procedure, are stricter than, and absorb, those of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Menesheva v. Russia , no.   59261/00, § 105, ECHR 2006 ‑ III). However, the Court has found above that the applicants did not make use of the available domestic remedy with regard to their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 46.     The applicants further complained that the Prosecutor General’s decisions had resulted in a breach of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. However, the Court considers that the alleged violations have to be regarded as a consequence of the Prosecutor General’s decisions, which the applicants have not contested before a labour court in the first place. 47.     For these reasons, this part of the applications must also be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2017.   Abel Campos   Aleš Pejchal   Registrar   President APPENDIX     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Previous post Transferred to   53632/16 05/09/2016 Marzena KOWALSKA 29/05/1964 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Prosecutor General’s Office   the Warsaw-Praga regional prosecutor’s office as of 9   March 2016 (letter of 8   March 2016)   54131/16 07/09/2016 Krzysztof PARCHIMOWICZ 24/10/1958 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Prosecutor General’s Office   the Warsaw-Mokotów district prosecutor’s office as of 9   March 2016 (letter of 8   March 2016)   54145/16 07/09/2016 Irena ŁOZOWICKA 17/06/1961 Łódź   prosecutor at the Prosecutor General’s Office   the Łódź regional prosecutor’s office as of 11   March 2016 (letter of 8   March 2016)   54824/16 08/09/2016 Wojciech DUTKOWSKI 31/08/1952 Lgotka   prosecutor at the Katowice appellate prosecutor’s office the Katowice regional prosecutor’s office as of 11   April 2016 (letter of 7   April 2016)   56251/16 06/09/2016 Jakub CEMA 18/12/1972 Lędziny   prosecutor at the Katowice appellate prosecutor’s office the Katowice regional prosecutor’s office as of 11   April (letter of 7 April 2016)   56624/16 21/09/2016 Magdalena DMOCH 22/04/1967 Wrocław   prosecutor at the Wrocław appellate prosecutor’s office   the Wrocław-Psie Pole district prosecutor’s office as of 15   April 2016 (letter of 11   April 2016)   56630/16 22/09/2016 Bazyli TELENTEJUK 11/05/1960 Białystok   prosecutor at the Białystok appellate prosecutor’s office   the Białystok-Południe district prosecutor’s office as of 1   May 2016 (letter of 26   April 2016)   56835/16 22/09/2016 Jarosław ONYSZCZUK 10/09/1970 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Warsaw appellate prosecutor’s office the Warsaw-Mokotów district prosecutor’s office as of 11   April 2016 (letter of 5   April 2016)   56841/16 22/09/2016 Katarzyna KWIATKOWSKA 08/02/1967 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Warsaw appellate prosecutor’s office the Warsaw-Praga regional prosecutor’s office as of 18   April 2016 (letter of 13   April 2016)             57321/16 01/09/2016 Hanna WOJCIECHOWSKA 15/02/1966 Jelcz-Laskowice   prosecutor at the Wrocław appellate prosecutor’s office   the Oława district prosecutor’s office as of 15   April 2016 (letter of 11   April 2016)             57834/16 28/09/2016 Jolanta KORDULSKA 14/03/1964 Białystok   prosecutor at the Białystok appellate prosecutor’s office   the Białystok-Południe district prosecutor’s office as of 1   May 2016 (letter of 28   April 2016)             57998/16 29/09/2016 Piotr NIEZGODA 28/11/1962 Sułkowice   prosecutor at the Prosecutor General’s Office   the Cracow regional prosecutor’s office as of 1   April 2016 (letter of 30   March 2016)             58179/16 29/09/2016 Elżbieta CZEREPAK 09/05/1961 Wrocław   prosecutor at the Wrocław appellate prosecutor’s office   the Wrocław regional prosecutor’s office as of 15   April 2016 (letter of 11   April 2016)             58181/16 30/09/2016 Dariusz WIŚNIEWSKI 18/09/1963 Szczecin   prosecutor at the Szczecin appellate prosecutor’s office   the Szczecin-Śródmieście district prosecutor’s office as of 20   April 2016 (letter of 19   April 2016)             58183/16 30/09/2016 Iwona CICHA 14/05/1969 Szczecin   prosecutor at the Szczecin appellate prosecutor’s office   the Szczecin-Zachód district prosecutor’s office as of 20   April 2016 (letter of 19   April 2016)             58226/16 29/09/2016 Bogusław OLEWIŃSKI 03/02/1964 Rzeszów   prosecutor at the Rzeszów appellate prosecutor’s office   the Rzeszów district prosecutor’s office as of 20   April 2016 (letter of 19   April 2016)             58293/16 30/09/2016 Christopher ŚWIERK 19/03/1970 Dobra   prosecutor at the Szczecin appellate prosecutor’s office   the Szczecin-Zachód district prosecutor’s office as of 20   April 2016 (letter of 19   April 2016)             58335/16 29/09/2016 Anna Maria CZAPIGO 25/07/1971 Ożarów Mazowiecki   prosecutor at the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office the Warsaw-Mokotów district prosecutor’s office as of 4   April 2016 (letter of the same date)             58338/16 23/09/2016 Piotr WOŹNIAK 04/06/1969 Ożarów Mazowiecki   prosecutor at the Warsaw appellate prosecutor’s office the Warsaw-Praga regional prosecutor’s office as of 18   April 2016 (letter of 13   April 2016)             59125/16 01/10/2016 Rafał GAWINEK 20/04/1968 Szczecin   prosecutor at the Szczecin appellate prosecutor’s office   the Szczecin regional prosecutor’s office as of 20   April 2016 (letter of 19   April 2016)             59233/16 04/10/2016 Zbigniew RZEPA 18/06/1970 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office the Warsaw-Mokotów district prosecutor’s office as of 4   April 2016 (letter of the same date)             59256/16 04/10/2016 Marta RZEPA 25/05/1974 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Warsaw military regional prosecutor’s office the Warsaw-Mokotów district prosecutor’s office as of 4   April 2016 (letter of the same date)             59505/16 05/10/2016 Marcin MAKSJAN 18/07/1977 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Warsaw military regional prosecutor’s office the Warsaw-Mokotów district prosecutor’s office as of 4   April 2016 (letter of the same date)             59538/16 07/10/2016 Piotr WÓJTOWICZ 26/09/1965 Legnica   prosecutor at the Wrocław appellate prosecutor’s office   the Legnica regional prosecutor’s office as of 15   April 2016 (letter of 11   April 2016)             59734/16 05/10/2016 Dariusz KORNELUK 03/09/1967 Warsaw   prosecutor at the Warsaw appellate prosecutor’s office   the Warsaw- Śródmieście district prosecutor’s office as of 11   April 2016 (letter of 5   April 2016)             60078/16 06/10/2016 Sławomir GŁUSZUK 27/08/1960 Olmonty   prosecutor at the Białystok appellate prosecutor’s office   the Białystok-Północ district prosecutor’s office as of 11   April 2016 (letter of 7   April 2016)             60138/16 07/10/2016 Andrzej ŁOJKOWSKI 26/12/1953 Gdańsk   prosecutor at the Gdańsk appellate prosecutor’s office   the Gdańsk regional prosecutor’s office as of 18   April 2016 (letter of 14   April 2016)             60254/16 07/10/2016 Marek WEŁNA 28/02/1966 Dąbrowa Szlachecka   prosecutor at the Cracow appellate prosecutor’s office the Cracow-Nowa Huta district prosecutor’s office as of 15   April 2016 (letter of 7   April 2016)             60309/16 06/10/2016 Marek WÓJCIK 13/06/1963 Katowice   prosecutor at the Katowice appellate prosecutor’s office the Katowice regional prosecutor’s office as of 11   April 2016 (letter of 7   April 2016)             60346/16 09/09/2016 Małgorzata WASIAK 03/07/1967 Kąty Wrocławskie   prosecutor at the Wrocław appellate prosecutor’s office   the Wrocław regional prosecutor’s office as of 15   April 2016 (letter of 11   April 2016)             60479/16 13/10/2016 Leszek MUSIAŁ 17/10/1957 Suwałki   prosecutor at the Białystok appellate prosecutor’s office   the Suwałki district prosecutor’s office as of 1   May 2016 (letter of 28   April 2016)             60586/16 07/10/2016 Janusz KRAJEWSKI 07/12/1953 Gdańsk   prosecutor at the Gdańsk appellate prosecutor’s office   the Gdańsk regional prosecutor’s office as of 18   April 2016 (letter of 14   April 2016)             61033/16 14/10/2016 Andrzej TAŃCULA 28/11/1956 Augustów   prosecutor at the Białystok appellate prosecutor’s office   the Augustów district prosecutor’s office as of 1   May 2016 (letter of 26   April 2016)             61041/16 11/10/2016 Stanisław CZARNECKI 09/05/1958 Kielce   prosecutor at the Cracow appellate prosecutor’s office the Kielce regional prosecutor’s office as of 27   April 2016 (letter of 26   April 2016)             61605/16 07/10/2016 Andrzej KUKLIS 17/09/1962 Bielsko-Biała   prosecutor at the Katowice appellate prosecutor’s office the Katowice regional prosecutor’s office as of 11   April 2016 (letter of 7   April 2016)             61667/16 11/10/2016 Teresa ŁOZIŃSKA-FATYGA 11/03/1958 Legnica   prosecutor at the Wrocław appellate prosecutor’s office   the Legnica regional prosecutor’s office as of 15   April 2016 (letter of 11   April 2016)             63423/16 22/10/2016 Krzysztof WÓJCIK 03/11/1963 Cracow   prosecutor at the Cracow appellate prosecutor’s office   the Cracow regional prosecutor’s office as of 27   April 2016 (letter of 26   April 2016)             63433/16 24/10/2016 Jan PRZYBYŁEK 03/03/1959 Różnowo   prosecutor at the Białystok appellate prosecutor’s office   the Olsztyn-Północ district prosecutor’s office as of 1   May 2016 (letter of 26   April 2016)