The District Court in Kraków issued a judgment in the case brought by Krzysztof Gwizdała against Marcin Marczewski, editor-in-chief of the Bolec.Info portal. Marczewski is locally known as the publisher of Bolec.Info and also publicly presents himself as an IBM employee.

The case concerned an article published on Bolec in July 2024. The article described the financing of the Glina Show event and stated that “the prosecutor’s office had investigated the matter.” Krzysztof Gwizdała considered this information incomplete because it did not tell readers how the case had ended.

Documents from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Bolesławiec show that the proceedings were initiated following a notification from Marcin Marczewski. They concerned a suspicion that Krzysztof Gwizdała had committed an offence in connection with Glina Show. However, the prosecutor’s office concluded the proceedings on 23 April 2024. The case was discontinued because no offence had been committed, and the decision became final on 8 May 2024.

In other words: the prosecutor’s office examined the case but found no offence because none had been committed.

Krzysztof Gwizdała therefore asked Bolec.Info to publish a correction. He wanted readers to learn that the case initiated by Marcin Marczewski’s notification had been discontinued and that investigators had found no irregularities in the financing of Glina Show.

Marcin Marczewski refused to publish the correction. In a letter to Krzysztof Gwizdała, he stated that the correction did not meet the conditions set out in the law and was not factual.

The case went to court. The District Court in Kraków ruled that the correction should be published. In its judgment, it ordered editor-in-chief Marcin Marczewski to place the correction alongside the article concerned.

The text of the correction specified in the judgment reads:

CORRECTION
The case initiated by M. Marczewski’s notification was discontinued. Investigators found no irregularities in the financing of Glina Show.
Krzysztof Gwizdała

In its reasoning, the court explained that the statement “the prosecutor’s office investigated the matter” could be incomplete for a reader. It does not indicate how the proceedings ended. The court therefore found that this information required clarification.

The court also noted that the correction referred to two related passages in the publication: the description of the “scandalous issue of financing” and the information about the prosecutor’s investigation. In the court’s view, these elements formed a single message for the reader and could require supplementation.

The judgment shows that in disputes between local media outlets, not only sharp assessments but also full context matter. If a reader is told that the prosecutor’s office dealt with a case, they should also know whether the proceedings ended in charges, an indictment, or — as in this case — discontinuation because no offence had been committed.

The judgment is not final because Marcin Marczewski has filed an appeal.