SadPole - I think you are reading things into the CVR transcript that are conjecture (unless the Polish version has more?).
It matters greatly whether the readings were radalt or baro - that would decide whether they were 'high' or not.
"were based entirely on the altitude reports he was getting (for a time being) from the plane." - of which he appears to have had NONE during the approach?
There is no indication that anyone knew of the valley. I would suggest that "there is a hole there and fog showed up" refers to the airfield? As for the TAWS comment - what on earth does that mean? Then TAWS is ignored completely!
As to who is 'responsible' - there should be only one Captain - he or she is 'responsible'. ATC do not, as yet, fly the aircraft. The 'old school' are correct. It would appear the crew were ill-prepared for the airport.
FD - didn't quite understand "hence there is no reason to give any sort of approach clearance to pilot, it rest with ATC." - if it does 'rest', why was descent not 'commanded'? Do you read "distance 10, entering glideslope" (10:39:09) as the descent instruction? Do you think the crew realised this? Would you? In my part of the world we expect "commence descent now for an x degree glidepath".
The question remains, if those glide angles are correct - why fly them? I still think they had seen a bit of ground or some visual cue - maybe lights - in the valley (downslope cloud clearance with the easterly wind?) and were diving for it, unaware of the rising ground ahead..