Bez kategorii

The symposium was the culmination of the work of researchers from the University of Maastricht and their partners from five member states of the European Union. However, it was also a space to share experiences with judges, prosecutors, lawyers and academics from all over Europe.

Fair Trials organised a regional policy meeting in Brussels to help launch a new report, as well as a regional handbook for lawyers, to help ensure effective legal assistance in pre-trial decision-making.

The event brought together more than 60 criminal justice experts from across Europe, including partners from Bulgaria (the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee), Greece (Centre for European Constitutional Law), Hungary (the Hungarian Helsinki Committee), Italy (Antigone), and Romania (APADOR-CH).

The seminar covered different subjects related to extradition and European Arrest Warrant, for example basics of EU Law and ECHR Law, bilateral extradition treaties v. The “European Arrest Warrant” system, Comparative extradition law, examples of extradition cases. The seminar was attended by experts from the European Union, USA, Canada, Belarus and Mexico.

In her speech, Ms. Urszula Poznańska provided information on the procedure for issuing and executing the EAW in Poland. She also focused on Poland’s applications for the extradition of citizens to countries outside the European Union, main problems related to the application of the EAW by Polish authorities, as well as the possibilities of defense in cases in which the EAW was issued.

The meeting was attended by over 80 experts in the field of criminal law. This annual conference aims to include sharing experiences and discussing challenges in the area of cross-border cooperation in Europe in criminal matters.

The last twelve months has arguably seen a crisis of mutual trust in Europe, with question marks remaining over extradition requests to Poland and what can be done to ensure that defence rights and the rule of law are being respected. The issues around mutual trust was discussed by Gwen Jansen from Gwen Jansen Advocatuur, Andras Kadar from Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Maria Radziejowska from Pietrzak Sidor & Wspólnicy, facilitated by Fair Trials’ Senior Lawyer Laure Baudrihaye-Gérard.

In her speech, attorney Katarzyna Dąbrowska focused on extradition and the European Arrest Warrant, as well as on the challenges that may arise in specific cases.

“We are extremely proud of this recognition”, says firm’s partner Mikołaj Pietrzak, was also personally named, for the third time, the Best Corporate Defence Attorney. “We’ve been shaping the market practices in this area of law for years, and I’m very glad to see that the effort made by our team is appreciated”, Mr Pietrzak adds.

The team of Pietrzak Sidor & Wspólnicy has the years’ worth of expertise in defending corporate criminal cases. Within the realm of its corporate criminal defence practice, the firm provides legal representation at all stages of tax offence proceedings and in proceedings that involve liability for violation of public finance discipline, offering legal advice tailored to meet the needs of the business.

This year, apart from Mr Pietrzak, the other ex aequo winner in the Best Corporate Defence Attorney category was Ms Dominika Stępińska-Duch. We extend our congratulations to both winners!

The UN Secretary-General appointed Mr Pietrzak as one of the five Fund’s Trustees in 2016. The Board of Trustees works closely with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and is responsible for developing recommendations on awards of financial assistance for aid actions and projects for victims of torture.

Over 150 states ratified the UN Convention against Torture. Pursuant to the Convention, torture is a crime of international law, the prohibition of torture is absolute and nothing can justify resorting to torture.

The ranking includes lawyers from 53 jurisdictions across Europe, including Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, in 25 different areas of law. It presents profiles of lawyers working in arbitration, dispute resolution, corporate law or white-collar crime.

Ranking’s authors recognised Mr Pietrzak’s long-standing and extensive experience in providing legal aid and defence of clients in cases of economic and tax offences.

The ranking can be accessed here.

In May 2011, a Regional Examination Board (REB) at Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski invalidated the results of the chemistry section of the matura exam taken by a group of students. The decision was based on a contention that they had received improper assistance in completing their exam papers. However, a general note that the students initially received from the Board did not reveal which of the test assignments raised suspicions of exam supervisors.

“The students suffered devastating consequences of the invalidation. Having been deprived of the option to challenge the decision, they could not start the university studies they have been dreaming about and their plans for next several years could no longer be achieved”, argued Paweł Osik, firm’s associate involved in the case.

Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

The students requested a judicial review of the decisions of the Regional Examination Board before an administrative court. However, the court ruled that law did not provide an opportunity for challenging the invalidation of a secondary school leaving exam. Having considered a complaint in cassation against the judgment, Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance court’s decision and emphasised that the possession of a certificate of completion of secondary education did not grant, in itself, a “right” to be admitted to university studies of one’s choice.

Eighteen secondary school students then complained to the Constitutional Court, opposing to the absence of the opportunity to challenge a decision invalidating the matura exam. They argued that this legal loophole violated their right to court and education as well as the right to legal protection of honour and good name.

In 2015, the Constitutional Court held that the absence of the possibility to appeal against the exam’s invalidation to an administrative court was constitutional.

The proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights

In 2015, the students submitted their applications to the European Court of Human Rights. We allege in the applications that a situation where the applicants are unable to challenge REB’s decision, which was crucial for the students at their then-current stage of education, constitutes a violation of the right to a court and a fair trial”, Małgorzata Mączka-Pacholak, an attorney involved in the case. The students also pointed to a violation of the right to education and right to privacy.

The ECtHR’s communication of the case means that it has successfully passed procedural verification and the Government now needs to take a position regarding the points raised in the application. It has not yet been made known when the Court will hear the case.

On 20 November 2017, Fatou Bensouda, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, requested the Court to authorize an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in relation to the armed conflict in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan since 1 May 2003. This request covers also crimes that are linked to this armed conflict and were committed on the territory of other States Parties to the Rome Statute (the ICC’s founding treaty, to which Poland is a party) since 1 July 2002. According to the Prosecutor, the investigation, if authorized, should concern crimes allegedly committed by the members of Taliban and affiliated armed groups, members of Afghan authorities, as well as members of the US forces and of the CIA. The last category of crimes covers also secret detention and interrogation programme conducted by the CIA in Europe, including on the territory of Poland.

On 6 December 2017, Ahmad Assed, Nancy Hollander and Mikołaj Pietrzak, legal representatives of Mr Al-Nashiri, submitted on his behalf representation under art. 15(3) of the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court in the Hague to support the Prosecutor’s request. Pursuant to art. 15(3) of the Rome Statute victims of crimes covered by the Prosecutor’s request for authorization of an investigation have the possibility to make representations to the Court. In such representations, victims inform the Court of their views and concerns relating to the possible investigation.

Mr. Al Nashiri is a Saudi national who was subjected to the CIA’s secret detention and interrogation programme intended for so-called “High Value Detainees” – captives from among the Al-Qaeda group suspected of terrorism. This programme consisted of a net of clandestine detention facilities located in Europe, including in Poland and in Romania between 2002-2006, which operated with their authorities’ acquiescence and secret connivance. In these so-called “black-sites” the HVD prisoners – including Mr. Al-Nashiri – were illegally detained and subjected to brutal interrogation techniques amounting to torture and inhumane or degrading treatment, which were developed by the CIA under Enhanced Interrogation Techniques programme.

Earlier in July 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) held that Poland violated the European Convention of Human Rights and Protocol No. 6 to the Convention by participating in the extraordinary rendition and secret detention of Mr. Al Nashiri in a secret CIA prison on Polish territory and by failing to conduct a “prompt”, “thorough” and “effective” investigation into allegations of serious violations of the Convention, including torture, ill-treatment and undisclosed detention of Mr. Al Nashiri (Al Nashiri v. Poland, ECtHR, Judgement of 24 July 2014).

„The ICC may be the second international court after the ECHR that will adjudicate the case of persons who were detained and tortured by the CIA. Meanwhile, Polish authorities have been investigating the issue of the CIA rendition centers in Poland for almost ten years now, yet ineffectively. Throughout all this time persons who were unlawfully detained and tortured in the CIA rendition centers have had a limited possibility to seek justice.” – says attorney-at-law Mikołaj Pietrzak, who represents Mr. Al Nashiri.