The District Court in Jelenia Góra acquitted Mirosław Starzyk of the charge of false accusation on 14 January 2026. The case was heard following appeals filed by both the accused and the representative of the auxiliary prosecutor, namely Piotr Roman, President of Bolesławiec.
The appellate court amended the judgment of the District Court in Bolesławiec and ruled:
- acquittal of the accused,
- costs of the proceedings to be borne by the State Treasury,
- awarding remuneration to the court-appointed defense counsel,
- exemption of the auxiliary prosecutor from the fee for the second instance.
What was the case about?
The proceedings were connected with events from 2019–2020 concerning the demolition of buildings on Staroszkolna and Orla streets in Bolesławiec. Historically, the structures were connected with a branch of the Gross-Rosen camp (Bunzlau I and Bunzlau II).
Mirosław Starzyk took action to protect these sites, sending letters to public institutions and local government authorities. In 2020, he filed a private indictment against the city’s president, accusing him, among other things, of promoting a totalitarian system and insulting the memory of camp victims.
The case was referred to the prosecutor’s office and then to court. On 20 July 2022, the court in Bolesławiec issued a penalty order in which it found the man guilty of false accusation and sentenced him to 8 months of restriction of liberty involving unpaid community service. The penalty order was issued without a hearing. After an objection was filed, the case was examined under the general rules. In April 2025, the District Court in Bolesławiec found Mirosław Starzyk guilty of false accusation under Article 234 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 3 months’ imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 2 years. The court also ordered, among other things, that he inform his probation officer about the course of the probation period and that the judgment be made public.
Appeals and amendment of the judgment
Both parties to the proceedings appealed the District Court’s judgment. The representative of auxiliary prosecutor Piotr Roman challenged the judgment, among other things, with respect to compensatory and penal measures (he wanted a public apology and money for the president), while the accused sought to have the judgment set aside in its entirety.
After hearing the case, the District Court amended the judgment and acquitted the accused. The appellate court’s judgment brings the case to an end at the second-instance stage and sets aside the earlier conviction.