Judge of the Regional Court in Jelenia Góra Andrzej Żuk heard the appeal in the case of four journalists from the istotne.pl portal accused of defamation in connection with publications concerning Father Andrzej Jarosiewicz and Adrian Drankowski.

The appellate proceedings lasted several months and included as many as three hearing dates: in December 2025 and in January and March 2026. The court heard the appeal against the judgment of 18 July 2025. In the first instance in Bolesławiec, where the judgment was issued by court assessor Dominik Rajter, all four journalists were acquitted of the charges.

Most acquittals upheld, with one exception

On 19 March 2026, the appellate court upheld the acquittal of three journalists and partially upheld it for the editor-in-chief. At the same time, it overturned the judgment with regard to one of the charges against Krzysztof Gwizdała (concerning the priest’s case) and referred the case back for reconsideration by the District Court in Bolesławiec.

This means that:

  • in Adrian’s case, everyone has been finally acquitted,
  • in the case of Father Jarosiewicz, the proceedings against editor-in-chief Krzysztof Gwizdała will be heard from the beginning.

If you would like to support istotne.pl in its defense against the priest, a fundraiser is being held here: zrzutka.pl/hb6dc7

Several hearings despite complete evidence

From the perspective of the parties to the proceedings, the course of the appeal process was surprising. Although, as participants indicate, the evidence had already been complete at the outset, the court decided to set additional hearing dates.

– The judgment is bizarre. Regarding the celebrity Adrian, we were all acquitted, while regarding the priest, I am to have a new trial from the beginning, and the rest of my journalists are innocent. Unfortunately, I cannot reveal details of the hearings, although I would gladly talk about them, because there is a lot to talk about. I would also gladly comment on the conduct of Judge Andrzej Żuk from Jelenia Góra. Neither the priest nor Adrian consent to publishing information about what happened in the courtroom. This is also what the law provides: it automatically excludes the public, although the prosecutors could agree to open the trial to the public – says istotne.pl editor-in-chief Krzysztof Gwizdała. – If I said anything about what happened in the courtroom, it would be a crime. Unfortunately, the public will learn nothing from the trial, not even the reasoning behind the judgment, which is a shame... – adds Krzysztof Gwizdała.

Announcement of a cassatory complaint

The legal counsel who, together with Agata Bzdyń, co-represented the portal’s journalists in court, has announced further legal steps.

– After reviewing the reasoning, we will consider filing a cassatory complaint with the Supreme Court. In our view, the District Court’s judgment should be upheld in its entirety – says defense counsel for the accused, legal counsel Marcin Pawelec-Jakowicki, associated with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which supports the journalists in the proceedings.

Up to another year and a half of uncertainty

The case may now go to the Supreme Court. Depending on its decision, two scenarios are possible:

  • overturning part of the Regional Court’s judgment and reconsidering the appeal,
  • or conducting the proceedings again from the beginning in the district court with regard to the editor-in-chief.

The cassatory procedure may take up to several months, meaning a further period of uncertainty for the parties to the proceedings, particularly the editor-in-chief.

The case also has a broader context related to the so-called SLAPP phenomenon (strategic lawsuits against public participation), meaning court proceedings used to exert pressure on journalists and limit public debate. Such cases, even when they end in acquittal, involve prolonged stress, costs, and the need to devote time and resources to the defense.

In the view of the istotne.pl editorial team, the course of this case fits this mechanism. The many-month proceedings, successive hearing dates, and the partial overturning of the judgment concerning the editor-in-chief mean that, despite the favorable outcome for most of the journalists, the case remains open and continues to generate uncertainty. In the journalists’ assessment, this may have a chilling effect on publications concerning socially important issues.