Mariusz Ch. was dismissed from his job at the hospital for violating his basic employee duties, namely “for committing a crime.” The employment contract was terminated for this reason. The doctor appealed, filing a lawsuit for reinstatement and payment of outstanding remuneration for the period during which he was out of work.

Expert opinion

Based on the facts described in various publications, it can be concluded that the default judgment was issued in accordance with Articles 339 et seq. and Article 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant employer, properly notified of the hearing date, failed to appear, submit explanations either orally or in writing, or present circumstances that could cast doubt on the facts cited in the lawsuit. Therefore, the court not only could but was obliged to accept Mariusz Ch.’s statements as true. Legal experience suggests that, to a considerable extent, it is the defendant who is responsible for allowing a default judgment to be issued.
The view that press reports concerning the reasons and grounds for Mariusz C.’s detention and arrest cannot affect the judgment in this person’s employment case should be fully endorsed—particularly when the defendant employer’s failure to act led to the default judgment being issued.

Attorney Tomasz R. Weigt
Law Office in Bolesławiec

The court ordered the hospital director to submit a response to the lawsuit, provide information about earnings, and submit the claimant’s personnel files. The hospital did not respond. As a result of this inaction, on the day of the hearing the court had only the lawsuit and Mariusz Ch.’s arguments.

“The court was ignored. Since the hospital management failed to act, the court issued a default judgment. It is the simplest measure,” Janina Jakubiec, President of the District Court in Bolesławiec, told Boleslawiec.org.

After the judgment, the hospital management woke up. It filed an objection to the default judgment, and the court set a new date for 22 October. The case returns to the starting point. After the objection to the default judgment was filed, the court lifted the immediate enforceability of the reinstatement order and the awarded remuneration.

The temporary detention order alleges that Mariusz Ch. accepted bribes from several people over the course of a year. However, this has not yet been proven, so the alleged crime may be questionable. The law works in the accused’s favor because until a crime is proven, he is innocent. Contrary to press reports, the detention order does not state at all that the doctor accepted a bribe from a police officer. In such a case, there would surely be no doubt that a crime had been committed. But that is not the case.

“The media are talking about a police officer handing over a bribe. This is not in the order. The case evidence does, however, contain an impeccable employer’s opinion of Mariusz Ch.,” explains the President of the District Court in Bolesławiec.

We will return to the neurologist’s case soon.