Breaking News: Festival's Issues:
    Due to the fact of great interest in the Chojecki case - organizer of a festival which emerged in 2004, a year after ours, and which has been a copy of our WJFF since 2003 - we continue to inform you:

  • Spetmber 5, 2017.
  • The EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS in Strassbourg accepted Daniel Strehlau`s complaint against the courts in the Republic of Poland and is going to judge the case STREHLAU vs. Poland! THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES OF CONVENTION WERE VIOLATED BY THE COURTS IN POLAND:

    Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - The State did not fulfill its positive duty to provide a fair trial.
    1. The violation of procedural law, which affects the outcome of the proceedings...
    - violation of Article 233 § 1 of the Code of Civil Proceedings.
    - violation of the provisions of substantive law, i.e.:
    - violation of Article 24 § 1 of Civil Code
    - violation of Article 3, Article 10 Section 1 and Article 18 of the Unfair Competition Act
    - violation of Article 78 Section 1 of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights
    - violation of Article 328 § 2 of Code of Civil Proceedings

    Art. 13: The appeal court in Poland violated Art. 13 of the Convention, which protects the right to effective remedy.

  • 2017 - 2015
  • Daniel Strehlau answered regularly to the Court in Strasbourg and regularly submitted his petition again.
  • May 2015.
  • The one - judge court in the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS in Strassbourg in a person of a former collaborator of Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Poland, Ms. Natalia Kobylarz - Lerner systematically rejects Daniel Strehlau`s complaint against the courts in the Republic of Poland after each Strehlau`s submission. Although the clear evidence of the violations of the Article 6 (the right to fair trial, which is the amendment in US constitution as well) and Article 13 (the right to the effective remedy - the appeal court) of Human Rights Court, which Poland is a member, the judge rejects Strehlau`s complaint without any justifications...

  • Novemver 2014.

  • Ladies and Gentlemen,
    The statement about the parasitic activity Mr. Miroslaw Chojecki and his Jewish Motifs Association in Poland

    Personal statement of the negative impact of Mr. Miroslaw Chojecki's Jewish Motifs Association and film festival on Mr. Daniel Strehlau and the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival, Poland.

    The following is a brief attempt to explain the current complex situation confronting the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival, the first of its kind to be established in Eastern Europe and founded by Strehlau in 2003. This festival is credited with pioneering achievements. Mr. Miroslaw Chojecki's Jewish Motifs festival was established by Chojecki in 2004 after a meeting with Strehlau. The Jewish Motifs Association was originated by Chojecki in 2005. It is apparent that Chojecki used Strehlau's festival as a model, appropriating the format and other features without Strehlau's knowledge or consent. Chojecki committed plagiarism.

    As a result of the similarities of the two festivals, they are now confused in the media and in the minds of distinguished filmmakers, sponsors, and moviegoers. As an example, authors have submitted their films to the wrong festival Adding to the confusion was Chojecki's unauthorized use of the name, Warsaw Jewish Film Festival, in information packets, business cards, and newsletters distributed to journalists in press conferences. Yet, Polish cultural institutions have given the newer festival of the Jewish Motifs Association preferential treatment in funding. The reasons that the latter festival has preempted the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival remain unclear.

    Besides plagiarism, Chojecki has slandered Strehlau. In the largest and oldest Polish weekly, "Polityka," Chojecki made untrue statements about his rival, Strehlau. In this article, he asserted that he had the idea earlier and said in the interview: "...he met Strehlau, he told him about the Festival, and later Strehlau made his festival". Then why didn't Chojecki patent his idea and create a festival before Strehlau or even festival web? There is proof that, in fact, Strehlau was the first in July of 2003 to launch a full-scale festival: films, agreements with sponsors, website, newsletter, outdoor commercial, and 8,000 newsletter subscribers. The false information was nevertheless devastating personally and professionally. There was a boycott of the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival by audiences, media, and sponsors, including some who had supported the very first festival in 2003.

    Please read more of above Statement in the attachments below. Samples of eveidences below
  • October 2013.

  • EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS in Strassbourg registered in October 2013 my complaint and is going to judge it!

  • June the 28th, 2013

  • On June 28th, 2013, I submitted my complaint (537 pages in English togehter with 770 pages of the documantations from the courts) and our case against dishonest organizers of the copy of our Festival to the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS in Strassbourg, which in October 2013 confirmed the registration of my complaint and is going to judge it.

    We hope for the verdict, which will present the dishonest of Mr. Miroslaw Chojecki and other organizers of so called festival Jewish Motifs and doesn’t allow the dishonest organizers to realize their Festival, which is organizing against the law.
    Important doucements:

  • 2013, June the 28th
  • We submitted our complaint (537 pages togehter with 770 pages of the documantations from the courts) and our case against dishonest organizers of the copy of our Festival to the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS in Strassbourg.

    In 2013, as in previous years, our Festival was refused subsidies granted through competition by Polish national institutions. Unfortunately, the Polish national institutions yet again support the other Warsaw festival with similar theme JEWISH MOTIFS (Ministry of Culture and National Heritage – PLN 60,000, Polish Film Institute – PLN 40,000, City of Warsaw – PLN 700,000), which was created later than our Festival, which used our name, structure and the concept of our own Festival, and its organizers slandered us in public, although we never had, do not have and do not want to have anything to do with this strange thing. This is why we decide to bring action to the European Court in Strasbourg. This festival is younger than ours, it does not have such achievements or repertoire as ours. Our Festival was once again completely ignored in a manner which resembles dirty tricks of higher-ups from the Communist past. Institutions which belong to the EU in the 21st century should know better than that and should support events with established reputation and world-wide recognition.

    We would like to ask you to step up and shun the Festival JEWISH MOTIFS in the same way we are shunned by the Polish national institutions.

    We do hope that our situation will change for the better.

  • 2012, August the 3rd
    The Appeal Court in Warsaw announced verdict on August 3, 2012

  • "Statement after the decision of the Appeal Court from August 3rd, 2012: below or in PDF here".

    Our festival has hung in the balance for several years now due to the lack of financial means and support from state institutions, which is the result of unfair practices of our competitors — the organizers of the so called festival “Jewish Motifs”.

    The court proceedings against the organizers of the so called festival “Jewish Motifs” have been in progress since 2006, when the defendant, Miroslaw Chojecki, rejected a settlement he was offered by the complainant, Daniel Strehlau. The litigation concerns protection of moral rights of the complainant after the defendant published untruthful statements in the Polityka weekly magazine, infringement of copyright (using an identical name, identical solutions and ideas as the complainant in the defendant’s festival) and actions forbidden under the provisions of the act on protection of fair trade. Daniel Strehlau had not known the defendant or his ideas nor had he had anything to do with him.

    Unfortunately on August 3rd, 2012 Warsaw Court of Appeal sustained the decision of the District Court and despite blatant evidence did not acknowledge Daniel Stehlau’s claims. At the beginning of the hearing the judge admitted that an important piece of evidence had been lost, namely the unfortunate article from Polityka, which had been submitted as evidence together with several further pieces of fundamental evidence by Mr. Strehlau. After she was presented a copy of the piece of evidence, the judge summarized the proceedings of the past several years in an infantile way and pronounced the court’s decision, stating that she did not recognize anything harmful in what the defendant had said about the complainant in the article published by Polityka. Thus she failed to acknowledge the evidence and opinions by renown experts collected by the complainant, including the results of a polygraphic examination which the complainant had undergone on his own demand. Next, the judge stated that the festival names used by the defendant in Polish were not identical with the names of the complainant’s festival, e.g. because the defendant used the word “miedzynarodowy” (“international”), and the fact that the names were identical in English (the defendant used the same name as the complainant, namely “Warsaw Jewish Film Festival”, e.g. in press material offered to journalists during press conferences, which material had been submitted to the court as evidence) did not count, only the Polish language version did. That justification is hardly worth commenting on. It ought to be noted, however, that the evidence and the reality clearly point to the fact that the defendant created his festival based on the complainant’s already existing festival, using its name and the complainant’s achievements, thus misleading Polish and international public opinion.

    For Mr. Strehlau defendant Chojecki remains a person who tells untruth. Mr. Stehlau’s opinion can be confirmed by the circumstances of his one and only meeting with the defendant on August 14th, 2003, which meeting was sought by the latter. The defendant himself contacted Mr. Strehlau per email on August 4th and suggested a meeting. This email evidently proves that the defendant and the complainant had not known each other and, at the same time, that the defendant was familiar with Mr. Strehlau’s existing film festival and the film competition (a printout of the email was submitted as evidence to the court together with District Court hearing minutes including the confirmation of the date and content of the letter made by the defendant). The complainant did not go to this meeting intending to establish any sort of cooperation with the defendant, since the first edition of his own festival was beginning in only two and a half months, the promotional campaign was at its outset and it was too late to start any cooperation at this point. The complainant agreed to the meeting with reluctance, as he was busy with organizing the festival (for instance printing posters and flyers). As evidenced by the complainant’s testimony, he was the one to ask the defendant to refrain from organizing an identical festival and using an identical name. The defendant was fully aware of the existence of the complainant’s festival and knew some details, as he admitted to visiting the festival’s website regularly and finding it very good. When the complainant asked the defendant to refrain from organizing a similar festival, the defendant replied crudely: “So we’re going to have a crappy mess!” This sentences confirms the defendant’s deliberation. With time he indeed created a harmful mess, using the name of the complainant’s festival and imitating its structure. Mr. Strehlau points to the evidence from the polygraphic examination he underwent, whose results unambiguously confirm that before the meeting with the defendant the complainant had already prepared his festival, announced the competition, sent information to 8 thousand email addresses of important institutions and personalities in the whole world, as well as set up a public website on the festival including all details, which website was also visited by the defendant. The fact that the complainant’s festival had been in the stage of advanced preparation, including developed structure based on free market principles (as opposed to the festival of the defendant, who had not done anything over numerous years of intending to organize a festival), well ahead of the meeting with the defendant and the defendant’s invitation was confirmed by witnesses and letters from offices of various state agencies. The defendant claimed that he had had the concept of such a festival before — it is a pity that neither the complainant nor the public opinion had ever heard anything about it.

    How then, in the light of the above, could the defendant say the following for the article in Polityka (the authenticity of the statement was confirmed by the defendant and by the author of the article):
    “Someone recommended that I cooperate with Daniel Strehlau, who was supposed to have very good connections. So I met him and told him about my idea. After some time I found out that he was organizing his own festival.” — one of Mr. Chojecki’s statements published in the article “Szmonces na dachu” by Dorota Szwarcman, Polityka No. 45(2477), November 6th, 2004, p. 68.
    Therefore not “after some time I found out”, but “when going to the meeting, I was aware of and knew details of the complainant’s festival” is how the statement should read if the defendant were to remain honest … The actions of the defendant became parasitic and started breaching the principles of fair competition (e.g. distributing flyers with an identical festival name as that of the complainant’s festival) shortly after the meeting, and after the publication of the article in Polityka including the dishonest statement by the defendant, the complainant’s festival lost its credibility and sponsors’ interest, while the complainant himself was perceived as dishonest.

    The defendants distributed promotional material containing an identical festival name as that of the complainant’s festival both in English and in Polish about their festival in the whole world, for instance during a press conference journalists were given business cards with the English name of the complainant’s festival, namely “Warsaw Jewish Film Festival”. Internet search engines still show websites on both festivals under this name.

    As compared to other major film festivals in Warsaw, Poland, Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia, the complainant’s festival includes elements of uniqueness: a set of crucial features which do not appear in this configuration in any other film festival, and particularly not in any Jewish film festival, not to mention another film festival held in the same city.

    Therefore I demand that the defendant cease to violate my personal rights and copyright as well as commit acts of unfair competition, that is that he cease to copy and imitate my festival, as well as make a public announcement in which he admits to telling untruth about the complainant. The complainant is forced to conclude that there is no true freedom and democracy in Poland, if such an unbiased state body as the Court of Appeals fails to acknowledge fundamental evidence, displaying instead the incompetence of Polish judicature and its bias, its failure to familiarize itself with evidence diligently, one-sidedness, failure to grasp the principles of the international free market of new professions or copyright, which turned out to be too abstract for the court … The court, which mostly deals with relatively tangible reality in the form of cases concerning products and trademarks, apparently had troubles imagining virtual copyright to a festival — a creation which exists in a similar way as tangible products or as services (I wonder how the court perceives e.g. virtual bank transfers or virtual art — are they, too, inexistent because they are intangible?). The complainant’s case is not the only example of pathology in Polish judicature. In another case the court decided that putting up a banner with the inscription “Death to hooked noses” in a football stadium did not fall in the category of promoting national hatred, because no nationality was mentioned.

    The complainant is going to continue his legal struggle for the good name of himself and the festival he created. The complainant does not comprehend why he should live with a blemish for which the defendant, Mr. Chojecki, is responsible.

    Daniel Strehlau

  • 2012, June the 24th
    Please read my article:

  • 2011, June the 1st
    Daniel Strehlau sent appeal to the Assembly Court in Warsaw, PL

  • 2011, March the 2nd - verdict.
    Why does Daniel Strehlau, director of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival, feel like a “Polish Alfred Dreyfus”?

  • On 2 April 2011, after a few years of court proceedings which started in 2006, the court finally issued a non-binding judgment in the case brought by Daniel Strehlau against Stowarzyszenie Zydowskie Motywy [Jewish Motifs Association], Studio Kontakt and Miroslaw Chojecki.

    Despite numerous pieces of firm evidence (correspondence, experts’ opinions, the claimant being subjected to polygraph tests and hundreds of pages of documents) gathered in the case and despite numerous respectable witnesses (two from Israel: Alex Claude and Michael Tapuach; Daniela Weber from Berlinale; Konstanty Gebert from Warsaw; Grace Guggenheim from the USA; Jacek Sylwin, being an expert of the sponsor bank, which refused to cooperate with the claimant’s Festival because of the doubts it had having read the article in POLITYKA weekly; Dorota Schwartzman, being the author of the article SZMONCES NA DACHU [SHMONTZES ON THE ROOF] in POLITYKA (No. 45 (2477) of 6 November 2004), who confirmed that she wrote what she heard from defendant Miroslaw Chojecki; a representative of the Office for Culture of the City of Warsaw, who confirmed that the City started to subsidise, from public funds, only one Jewish Festival that is the younger Festival of the defendants (subsidy of PLN 1.2 million, whereas the claimant’s Festival, being older and the first, received a subsidy of only PLN 100 thousand) who all confirmed the dishonesty of the defendants, the court dismissed the charges of:

    1. infringement of the claimant’s personal interests – that means that it is allowed in Poland to tell an untruth about someone, write it in the oldest opinion-forming weekly, POLITYKA, and ruin someone’s reputation and at the same time a public cultural event. The event is built on its reputation, which must be unblemished as it is taken into consideration by the sponsors who decide about financial support. The latter decides about the existence of the Festival which is assessed by the viewers not knowing the behind-the-scenes (large budget = good festival, small budget = poor festival and no interest in the festival in the future). One of the arguments of the court was that the article was long and the part concerning claimant Daniel Strehlau, in which defendant Miroslaw Chojecki told untruth, was short.

    2. infringement of copyright, as both festivals are different and the viewers and sponsors cannot be confused – why then do the film authors make mistakes and send the films to the defendants’ festival although they want to send it to the claimant’s festival? Why do the authors of films awarded at the defendants’ festival inform the public about the awards using the name of the claimant’s festival, at which in fact they were awarded nothing? Why did the defendants create exactly the same structure of the festival as was created by the claimant before? If they decided to create a festival having the same theme, being Jewish, in the same city, why did they not invent something else? Not all festivals in the world take the form of a competition with jury, categories, golden, silver, bronze and honourable awards, special awards and honourable mentions (an example is the Toronto International Film Festival which does not have those characteristics). While organising their festival, the defendants copied those characteristics and drew on the claimant’s festival which already existed. Initially, they even used a name which was the same as the name of the claimant’s festival, which confused the authors and viewers. Owing to that confusion, they built their event at the expense of the other event, i.e. the first, pioneering, Jewish film festival, not only in Warsaw but also in the whole of Poland and in that region of Europe, which was a unique and pioneering success: WEST BANK STORY, the film which was given the 2006 David Camera award, was an Oscar winner in the same category three months later. In 2007, two films presented at the claimant’s festival, Wajda`s KATYN and Israeli BEAUFORT, were Oscar nominees three months later.

    3. unfair competition, as the court decided that there was no infringement in the two above mentioned issues.

    Therefore, the future of the first, pioneering and trail-blazing Warsaw Jewish Film Festival hangs in the balance. Claimant Daniel Strehlau did not know the defendants and in particular defendant Miroslaw Chojecki, who maintained that he came up with his idea before claimant Daniel Strehlau. Claimant Daniel Strehlau had never even heard about the defendant and his idea or ideas. The claimant did not establish any cooperation with defendant Ewa Szprynger, whom he met at the Festival in Lublin in April 2003 as a film and TV programme producer. The defendant made a TV programme about the first, 2003, edition of the claimant’s Festival and at the same time analysed it thoroughly. Afterwards she became the president of defendant Miroslaw Chojecki’s association, Stowarzyszenie Zydowskie Motywy.

    Defendant Miroslaw Chojecki pestered the claimant to meet him about two and a half months before the first edition of the claimant’s festival in 2003. Then, in 2004, a month before the second edition of the claimant’s festival, the defendant publicly told untruth in POLITYKA weekly and by doing so, he brought about the collapse of the claimant’s Festival, his personal interests as well as his projects, contacts, friends at home and abroad and even family. Thus the claimant many a time experienced this parasitic behaviour of the defendant, with whom the claimant had never had anything to do, who the claimant had never known or heard about and who he does not want to have anything to do with in the future.

    Asked why he did not carry out his idea earlier, if he had come up with it before, the defendant answered that he did not receive money from Cinematography Committee, a public institution, in 2001. Claimant Daniel Strehlau organised his first Festival in November 2003 under free-market principles and thanks to attractive offers made to sponsors, being companies and private institutions which liked the complete project and wanted to be associated with the event.

    In July 2003, the claimant created webpages for the festival ( including rules and regulations, application forms, information about categories and awards (golden, silver and bronze award and honourable mentions etc.), introductory word and mission. In July 2003, the claimant sent information about his festival to eight thousand e-mail addresses of various institutions and VIPs from all over the world. The website administrator gave access to the statistics: there were several thousand visits to the Festival website in more than a dozen countries within 48 hours in July 2003. If defendant Miroslaw Chojecki had the idea earlier, why did he not create a website for his festival with information about his current or future plans? How was it possible to enter films for the defendant’s competition in 2001? It was not possible as the festival simply did not exist in any form, except for the form of an idea and thought, and the public knew nothing about it. It was possible to enter films for the festival in April 2004 after the defendants organised it while copying the structure of the other, already existing, Warsaw festival. There have been many people with various ideas which have not been carried out, there are many people with an idea, say, for a love song, but only one person having such idea is courageous enough to carry it out.

    The defendants did not make that effort, which is why the claimant concluded they were people of no talent and creativity. Their only effort consisted in analysing the website of the claimant’s Festival and the activity of the claimant. They did that in order to build an identical festival and to block the claimant’s activities in an unfair and planned manner by creating an atmosphere of dishonesty and doubts around the claimant. That in turn affected the decisions of the sponsors, who did not get involved in any festival, and of the decision makers from public institutions, who either stopped subsidising the claimant’s Festival or granted such low subsidies that it was impossible to develop it.

    In 2003, the sponsors were interested in further cooperation with the claimant after a spectacular success of his first Festival in 2003.

    In this situation, claimant Daniel Strehlau feels like a “Polish Dreyfus” because even the justice bodies do not see the evident harm and dishonesty, which is evident to various independent persons who are unrelated to the claimant and who simply analysed the matter and read a few papers submitted in the case, which apparently were not read by the Court.

    As there are no subsidies and few sponsors because of the above mentioned reasons, it remains to be seen whether the Eastern Europe’s first Jewish Film Festival will be organised in the future. The claimant no longer has such heroic power and his own resources so as to carry out the project as he did last years.

    Daniel Strehlau

  • 2011, February the 28th.
    The judge should informed that the veridct will be announced on March the 2nd, 2011.

  • 2011, February the 16th.
    The judge heared and questioned two sides: complainant (Daniel Strehlau) and defendants. The judge should announce the veridct on February the 28th, 2011.

  • 2010, October the 28th
    - at this day witness of defendant arrived Mr. Andrzej Wajda. The judge announced the next term of trial, which should take a place on February the 16th, 2011.

  • 2010, July the 8th
    took place the the trial. the judge announced the next term of trial, which should take a place on July the 8th. Three other witnesses was called: two of defendants and one of complainant (Daniel Strehlau), but they arrived only two of them: one of the defendants and one of compainant.

  • 2010, April the 21st
    - the trial took place on April the 21st, 2010. Only one witness arrived of defendants, Krzysztof Zanussi. The other witness, Andrzej Wajda should arrive on July the 8th.

  • 2010, January the 14th
    - the judge did decline the following term of trial and didn`t announce the new one yet.

  • The next part of the trial will take place in the Civil Court of Warsaw City. Three witnesses would be heard by Judge. Two of them, Mr. Andrzej Wajda and Mr. Krzysztof Zanussi for the side of defendant will be demand again, because they didn`t arrive last time.

    It is going about the value of ethic, morality, justice, honesty, good opinion.

    The case is to prove the dishonesty of the organizers and not legal status of the so called festival JEWISH MOTIFS, copy of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival established in 2003 by idea & project of Daniel Strehlau, which was damaged by unfair competition.
    Daniel Strehlau is represented by Pociej, Dubois and Partners, Lawyer`s Office. Soon more!

  • 2009, October the 1st

  • The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court of Warsaw City. Only one witness of three expected was heard by Judge - one of them from Germany - Mrs. Daniela Weber from BERLINALE FF. Mrs Weber gave the testimony for the side of Daniel Strehlau. Two witnesses from Poland Mr. Andrzej Wajda and Mr. Krzysztof Zanussi, who will testify for the side of Miroslaw Chojecki and his Festival, didn`t arrive the court.

    It is going about the value of ethic, morality, justice, honesty, good opinion.

    The case is to prove the dishonesty of the organizers and not legal status of the so called festival JEWISH MOTIFS, copy of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival established in 2003 by idea & project of Daniel Strehlau, which was damaged by unfair competition.
    Daniel Strehlau is represented by his lawyer Mrs. Zofia Gajewska from Pociej, Dubois and Partners, Lawyer`s Office.

  • 2009, May the 21st

  • The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Four witnesses were heard by Judge: Mr. Michael Tapuach - film producer from Israel, Mr. Jacek Sylwin - producer and advisor / decider of Millennium Bank according sponsorships of the Bank (Poland), Ms. Ewa Szwarcman - journalist and the author of the article, which presented the Miroslaw Chojecki`s opinion, describing Daniel Strehlau as a idea`s thief - she did confirm that she wrote what she did hear from M. Chojecki (Poland), Ms. Ewa Szprynger - President of M. Chojecki`s JEWISH MOTIFS ASSOTIATION, who did say that Chojecki is no organizer (?!) of the so called JEWISH MOTIFS Festival (Poland).

    The case is to prove the dishonesty of the organizers and not legal status of the so called festival JEWISH MOTIFS, copy of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival established in 2003 by idea & project of Daniel Strehlau, which was damaged by unfair competition.
    Daniel Strehlau is represented by his lawyer Ms. Barbara Kardynia from Pociej, Dubois and Partners, Lawyer`s Office. Soon more!

  • 2009, March the 31st

  • The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Ms. Grace Guggenheim (USA) was rehearsal by the judge in Warsaw, Poland. The judge establish new term for the next trial, May the 21st , 2009.

  • 2009, February the 19th

  • The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Two witnesses were interrogated by the Judge: Mr. Kostek Gebert (Poland) and Mr. Alex Claude (Israel). Daniel Strehlau was represented by his lawyer Ms. Barbara Kardynia. The judge took decision to continue the trial on March , 2009.

  • 2008, November the 25th

  • The second part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Daniel Strehlau was represented by his lawyer Ms. Barbara Kardynia. The judge took decision to continue the trial on February the 19th, 2009 when Daniel Strehlau will arrive especially from NYC for the trial in Warsaw. We hope for the verdict, which will present the dishonest of Mr. Miroslaw Chojecki organizer of so called festival Jewish Motifs. Soon more!

  • 2008, September the 11th

  • The first part of the trial took place finally. By decision of the judge the trial will be continued on November the 25th. During this part the audition of both sides took place only, which took about 2 hours only.
  • 2008, June the 25th

  • The Civil Court of Warsaw City did announce finally the day (September the 11th, 08) of the case against scandal person Miroslaw Chojecki, creator of so called Jewish Motifs festival - the copy of our Festival.

  • 2008, January 21st
  • The case was protracted due to some formal reasons from the day Chojecki was summoned by the Court to the day of the settlement in December 2006, which was not accepted by Chojecki. Among other facts, those reasons were: Chojecki’s legal address of residence was unavailable (it took about three months to receive the address from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration); Chojecki did not take a number of notifications and decrees of the Court, each of which had to become final and binding within the period of about 2 – 4 weeks; the Court sent the documents to an inappropriate division and so it had to send them to the appropriate one. Due to the abovementioned, that period was extended until the beginning of April 2008. The date of the hearing is to be set in that time. The case against respondent Chojecki serves to defend the good and honest name of Daniel Strehlau and his Festival. As it can be seen from the above, that does not suit Chojecki, who only benefits from the confusion and is afraid of the confrontation, by which he confirms that to Strehlau he is a blatant liar. If he were not, he would sue Strehlau, as the petitioner sued respondent Chojecki in order to fight for his rights. The case is important to Strehlau insofar as it rectifies the injustice he suffered.

  • 2007, April the 28th

  • December the 22nd, 2006

  • On 22nd of December, 2006, as petitioned by Daniel Strehlau’s lawyer, the Commercial Court in Warsaw called on Mr. M. Chojecki to make a settlement with Mr. Strehlau. Unfortunately, despite the proposal to reach a settlement, Mr. Chojecki refused to cooperate. As Mr. Chojecki did not appreciate the fact that Mr. Strehlau had hold out his hand to him, a decision was made to conduct further legal proceedings, i.e. to file a lawsuit to the Commercial Court against Mr. Chojecki and his dishonesty.

  • Unfortunately, on his Festival web Mr. Chojecki is presenting the copyright with the date of 2002 - 2007, which is false, as his Festival was established in 2004 and his Association in 2005.

  • We would like to inform you that we have never cooperated and do not cooperate with Mr. Chojecki.

  • We are waiting for the date of the trial in the Court in Warsaw /09.06.2007/.

  • Most films described in the article published in the biggest Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza about Mr. Chojecki`s festival in May 2007 had their Polish premieres during our 4th edition of WJFF in 2006, half a year earlier. Among them were WEST BANK STORY awarded Oscar`07 and David Camera`06. Unfortunately, Gazeta Wyborcza didn`t write about it in said article or in any article about our Festival in November 2006...

  • 2005, January

  • 2004, November the 6th

  • 2003, November the 4th

  • In the Jewish State Theater in Warsaw took place the Opening Ceremony of the 1st edition of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival by idea of Daniel Strehlau.

  • 2003, July the 26th

  • The first Festival web by Daniel Strehlau was activated in the www.