Crypto-Dictatorship in the EU: The Court’s Verdict on Tusk’s Poland

Timed just before an attempted political detention of Zbigniew Ziobro, one of the leaders of conservative opposition, the ruling exposes Tusk’s globalist administration as a system of repression.

Poland under Tusk’s rule is a “crypto-dictatorship”. “Disgraceful statements” by the current Minister of Justice. “Political persecution”, “violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. “Flagrant violations of human rights and of the constitutional order, unheard of in any civilised state”.

These are not journalistic slogans or political exaggerations.

They are legally substantiated findings, set out in a judicial decision annulling the European Arrest Warrant issued against me. An experienced judge, independent of executive power, described the actions of the Tusk administration in Justice Fund case in precisely these terms.

This ruling delivers a powerful blow on the very eve of a decision by Tusk’s associates on the detention of Zbigniew Ziobro—former Minister of Justice and one of the leading figures of Poland’s conservative opposition.

Since December 2024, I have been the first Polish Member of Parliament in more than 80 years to have been granted political asylum. And granted asylum in another EU Member State at that — in the Republic of Hungary. The Tusk government is pursuing me, Zbigniew Ziobro — former Minister of Justice — and many public officials for actions that clearly fell within the ordinary scope of political decision-making and administrative discretion. Classic lawfare. By means of an illegally seized prosecution service and courts, decisions ordering my arrest were issued. And, in connection with my earlier departure from Poland, a European Arrest Warrant as well.

And now, on 19 December 2025, the European Arrest Warrant has been annulled. By the very same judge with many years of experience who issued it a year earlier. In proceedings which, under normal circumstances, are usually based simply on the assessment of the arrest court and the prosecutor’s application. This time, however, the court found that this was not a normal situation.

The court’s decision is a genuine earthquake for the Tusk administration, which for two years has been doing little else but prosecuting the opposition. They treated the Justice Fund case as their flagship case.

But the decision itself is only the beginning. Its reasoning is a devastating assessment of two years of Tusk’s rule. In this very extensive text, I discuss the most important theses and evaluations made by the court.

In issuing its decision, the court stated that “In the interest of the administration of justice within the European area of freedom, security and justice (which constitute the axiological foundations of the European Union), it cannot be acceptable to allow the European Arrest Warrant to be applied contrary to the intentions of the EU legislature as an instrument of political repression.”

The court pointed to three circumstances that arose after the issuance of the EAW against me exactly one year earlier, on 19 December 2024. As in Hitchcock: the court begins with an earthquake, and then the tension rises:

“New fundamental circumstances have emerged which at the same time constitute negative procedural prerequisites for the further maintenance in force of the European Arrest Warrant in question, namely:
(1) The granting of refugee status (political asylum) to Marcin Romanowski by the authorities of Hungary;
(2) The refusal to issue a so-called Red Notice by the International Criminal Police Organization – INTERPOL, and the refusal to initiate an international search for Marcin Romanowski;
(3) Violations by the executive authority of human rights and civil liberties, as well as of the constitutional order of the Republic of Poland.”

The judge very strongly emphasises something extraordinary: contrary to the obligation arising from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution failed to submit to the court documents related to the granting of political asylum to me, as well as documents related to Interpol’s refusal to issue a Red Notice against me.

With regard to the concealment of this information, the court assessed that “The failure to inform the Court in the present case could alternatively have resulted from two causes: either it was a deliberate concealment of these facts from the Court, or it resulted from chaos and a lack of professionalism within the National Public Prosecutor’s Office.” Particularly outrageous is the concealment, for many months, of the reasoning of Interpol’s decision of April 2025, which is devastating for Tusk’s left-liberal regime. Interpol indicates, inter alia, that issuing a Red Notice against me would violate the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would be contrary to Interpol’s objectives. For many months, the prosecution lied, claiming that Interpol’s decision contained no reasoning. Reading the content of the document, one can understand their fear. A serious international organisation dismantles the actions of the Polish authorities in the Justice Fund case.

The concealment of documents justifies suspicion of acting to the detriment of the interests of the administration of justice, and the court additionally found that “proceedings prescribed by law should be initiated against the responsible persons, and if irregularities are established within the appropriate procedural framework, those persons should be held accountable.” The court’s assessments amount to a ready-made bill of indictment against the illegal actions of an illegal prosecution service and its political patrons.

Refusal by Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” and to initiate an international search

The fact of Interpol’s refusal to issue a Red Notice was deemed by the court to be fundamental. Such a refusal by Interpol — in the court’s view — is not only an independent ground for finding that further maintenance in force of the European Arrest Warrant against me “is flagrantly contrary to the interests of the Polish administration of justice,” but is also “disqualifying for the Polish executive authority, and in particular the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, as an organ of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.”

The court recalled that Interpol’s refusal was justified on the grounds that pursuing me via a Red Notice “constitutes an affront to the catalogue of human and civil rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The court further states: “It must be assumed that Interpol recognised the actions of the Polish authorities directed against Marcin Romanowski as political persecution. Further maintenance in force of the European Arrest Warrant in question would — primarily for this reason — be flagrantly contrary to the interests of the Polish administration of justice.”

Subsequently, the court addressed the issue it described as follows: “Violations by the executive authority of human rights and civil liberties, as well as of the constitutional order of the Republic of Poland.”

The court noted the existence in Poland of “an extremely dangerous phenomenon for a democratic state governed by the rule of law, unprecedented in any civilised legal order — namely, interference by the highest-ranking representatives of the executive authority in the sphere of judicial independence. Facts notoriously known to the Polish — and unfortunately also the international — public opinion include instances of drastic violations of the constitutional order by the executive authority in Poland. The court in the present case does not have jurisdiction to broadly discuss these issues, the assessment of which may be carried out by the competent authorities in appropriate proceedings.”

It is worth recalling that nearly a year ago, in January 2025, the President of the Constitutional Tribunal submitted a notification of a justified suspicion of committing the crime of a constitutional coup d’état in the form of blocking the functioning of constitutional state bodies: the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court, the National Council of the Judiciary, and the National Broadcasting Council. In July, in connection with the ideas of Tusk’s associates to block the assumption of office by a newly elected president, the Speaker of the Sejm from the governing coalition publicly spoke about pressure aimed at carrying out a coup d’état.

I wrote about the illegal, forceful takeover of the public media and the illegal removal of a constitutional body safeguarding freedom of speech and media independence in this report: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2025/06/18/threats-to-media-freedom-and-pluralism-in-poland-after-2023/.

I addressed actions directed against free elections, including the attempt to financially paralyse the largest opposition party — Law and Justice (PiS) — in this report: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2025/10/14/dismantling-electoral-safeguards-in-poland-under-tusks-government/

Another report addresses the illegal and forceful takeover of the prosecution service: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2025/05/28/weaponizing-justice-the-unlawful-takeover-of-polands-prosecution-service-by-the-left-liberal-government-of-donald-tusk/

And yet another report explains how, in violation of the Constitution, statutes, and rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal, Tusk’s associates seized practically full control over the courts in order to carry out purges and manipulate adjudicating panels so as to convict politicians of the conservative opposition: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2025/11/06/national-sovereignty-vs-liberal-juristocracy/.

Fortunately, 100% control over the courts is not possible, as demonstrated by the court decision discussed here.

The court further points to witch-hunts in pro-government media: the routine pronouncing of verdicts before any court has ruled in a case. The court’s conclusion is simple and obvious: “This constitutes unlawful conduct, as it violates the most fundamental human rights of all accused persons in the form of the presumption of innocence (…) These are behaviours that devastate the image of the Polish administration of justice domestically and — what is most important in the present case — also on the international stage.”

What does the court say about granting me political refugee status in Hungary?

“Hungary is a full member of the European Union, and all decisions of the Hungarian State concerning the granting of political asylum produce exactly the same legal effects as such decisions issued in any other Member State of the European Union. No legal act or ruling of an EU court has deprived Hungary of any attributes or powers arising from the fact of its membership in the European Union. Guided by the fundamental principle of legal cooperation between the Member States of the European Union — namely, the principle of trust in the authorities of other Member States — it must be stated that since the Hungarian State recognised that Marcin Romanowski is being politically persecuted in the Republic of Poland, this assessment must be treated as made in good faith and fully respected.”

And further:

“It is also significant that — even according to the scant information provided to the Court by the National Public Prosecutor’s Office — the Hungarian State fulfilled all formal requirements related to granting Marcin Romanowski refugee status: in particular, it notified the Council of the European Union of this fact, which accepted this information, did not challenge it, and subsequently notified the Polish side and all other Member States of the European Union. There is therefore no doubt whatsoever that the decision of the Hungarian authorities is fully consistent with European Union law and international law.”

The court also rules that the decision of the Republic of Hungary to grant me political asylum produces legal effects in all EU Member States — even if the asylum is granted to a citizen of another Member State, in this case Poland:

“There is no doubt in this respect that granting anyone refugee status (political asylum) in one Member State produces far-reaching legal effects in all other Member States.”

At the outset of its legal considerations regarding the effects of a political asylum decision, the court provides a powerful introduction to the issue:

“Neither primary EU law nor secondary EU law, nor even the case law of the CJEU, has envisaged a situation — until recently impossible to foresee — in which, in any Member State of the EU, there could occur such serious violations of the internal constitutional order, open breaches of the law, and persecution of the opposition for base motives (in particular such as revenge), and attempts to involve the administration of justice in these persecutions, that another Member State would consider it necessary and justified to grant a persecuted citizen of such a Member State refugee status and international protection.”

As a result, the court’s conclusion is as follows:

“The European Arrest Warrant cannot be perceived as an instrument of repression against persons who, in the assessment of any Member State of the EU, are politically persecuted in another Member State. For this reason as well, the European Arrest Warrant issued against Marcin Romanowski in the present case could not stand.”

It is not the court’s duty in proceedings concerning a European Arrest Warrant to examine the merits of the case, yet the court analysed the case file and all the evidence. Evidently, the court recognised the exceptional nature of the case: a hurricane-like media campaign lasting almost two years without interruption; public lynching by ministers and MPs of the governing coalition; the disclosure by pro-government media of selected fragments of evidence in order to create the impression that the case is serious. At the same time, formally, there are no charges of corruption or misappropriation of anything. The sole alleged “personal benefit” is the satisfaction derived from commissioning tasks to conservative and Christian organisations aligned with my worldview. The charges brought by the illegal prosecution service amount simply to the criminalisation of political actions falling within the scope of discretionary decision-making.

As a result of this analysis, the court delivered a devastating assessment of the nature of the charges against me:

“The Court in the present case has familiarised itself with the entirety of the investigation files and all collected evidence and — without daring to pass any judgment — considers the public presentation of Marcin Romanowski as a guilty person, who after being brought back to the country will be convicted and imprisoned, to be entirely unjustified (as publicly stated by one of the highest-ranking representatives of the executive authority, opposition members hiding abroad should be abducted by Polish special services and brought to Poland ‘in the trunk of a car’). These vile statements, incompatible with elementary standards of a democratic state governed by the rule of law, are widely known also to international public opinion.”

The incumbent Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General, Waldemar Żurek, recently uttered nonsense about bringing political refugees back “in the trunk of a car.” Earlier, a year ago, such a call was made publicly by former Prime Minister Leszek Miller — the man who brought Poland into the EU in 2004; before 1989 a communist apparatchik; until recently an MEP associated with Tusk. Poland in a nutshell. The court’s summary: vileness incompatible with elementary standards of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

Then it becomes even stronger:

“In light of the above circumstances, there are serious concerns that the situation currently prevailing in the Polish State may be classified as a crypto-dictatorship.”

The content of the additional marginal remark should not be surprising, given that it was Brussels bureaucrats — the largest German embassy in the world — who installed the Tusk regime with a clear task: to dismantle Poland. Conservative Poland, defending its Christian identity against mass Islamic immigration and woke ideology; defending sound economic calculation against zero-emissions madness; and defending its independence against Brussels–Berlin centralization:

“It should be added in passing that these violations of human rights and the constitutional order are taking place amid the complete silence of all European Union bodies.”

The court’s final summary:

“In conclusion: firstly, no politicians — including and especially those holding the highest positions in the executive branch — nor even the Court in the present case, are authorised to adjudicate on the guilt of Marcin Romanowski. Secondly, at the present stage of the criminal proceedings, it cannot be excluded that the competent adjudicating panel of the Warsaw Regional Court may issue any ruling in this case, including the acquittal of Marcin Romanowski of all charges brought against him. Marcin Romanowski remains a human being and, at present, from a legal point of view, remains an innocent person. In this situation — also for the above reasons — further maintenance in force of the European Arrest Warrant against one of the leading representatives of the opposition, in a situation where he has been publicly deemed guilty and ‘convicted’ by the highest representatives of the executive authority, would result in a complete loss of credibility of the Polish administration of justice not only domestically but, above all, on the international plane (argumentum ad Article 607b of the Code of Criminal Procedure).”

It is worth remembering that all positive decisions reached in my case in Poland were possible only thanks to the de facto internationalisation of the case. In July 2024, after my detention in front of cameras by a group of masked and armed counter-terrorism officers (despite the fact that two days earlier I had gone to the prosecutor’s office voluntarily but was not received), I was released solely because the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe immediately confirmed my international immunity as a member of the Assembly. The present decision, devastating for the actions of the Tusk administration, is fundamentally based on Interpol’s refusal to pursue me via a Red Notice and on the decision of the Republic of Hungary to grant me asylum.

For a year now, media operatives from pro-government outlets, politicians, and activists of the governing coalition in Poland and of the globalist opposition in Hungary have been conducting an incessant witch-hunt against me — which, from the perspective of their disgraceful interests, is in a certain sense understandable. However, occasional views appearing within the conservative camp in Poland that I should have allowed myself to be imprisoned and wait in pre-trial detention (for years) for a verdict must be treated as nonsense. During that time, I would be shown in handcuffs whenever it was necessary to divert attention from matters inconvenient for the Tusk government. Above all, it would have encouraged further brutal actions of this kind against other politicians of the conservative opposition.

Political asylum in Hungary provides the possibility of active action: dozens of reports by the Hungarian–Polish Institute of Freedom published in Europe and the United States, articles in international press, media activity, and more. Poland is a testing ground for globalist lawlessness. My aim is to warn others — especially Hungarians, where the leader of the globalist opposition, Péter Magyar, announces following Tusk’s path — by exposing the lawlessness carried out by the Tusk administration and its lies. But my most important goal is the liberation of Poland from this externally imposed, collaborationist, puppet left-liberal government of lawlessness.

That was precisely the strategic purpose of my departure from Poland and my application for political asylum granted by Poland’s historic and steadfast ally — Hungary: to fight lawlessness using the methods that are most effective in the given circumstances. Poles have always fought and will continue to fight for their Homeland. In Poland — and if that is impossible — abroad.