The Sejm grants consent by a resolution adopted by an absolute majority of votes of the statutory number of deputies; failure to obtain that majority is deemed a resolution refusing consent (Article 7c(6)).
A conviction for an offence under Article 297 § 1 or 2 of the Criminal Code entails mandatory forfeiture of items derived from the offence, as well as benefits or their equivalent, even if they are not owned by the offender (Article 297 § 7).
Bartoszewski has not yet lost his immunity: the Rules Committee has merely endorsed the motion, while the decisive word rests with the Sejm, which must vote by an absolute majority of the statutory number of deputies. The prosecutor’s office seeks to bring two charges against the deputy minister: misappropriation of entrusted property and acts aimed at frustrating an anticipated judgment by concealing assets. The matter concerns funds belonging to Andrzej Ciechanowiecki: GBP 1 million, EUR 45,000 and PLN 6,683,705.86, entrusted for management, as well as three apartments in Warsaw worth approximately PLN 7 million, acquired by a company established in the British Virgin Islands. The first charge will be based on the criminal provision concerning taking another person’s movable property with intent to appropriate it: Article 278 § 1 of the Criminal Code, which provides for imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years. The second charge falls within the structure of Article 297 of the Criminal Code: acting in concert with another person to conceal the origin of assets liable to seizure is punishable by imprisonment from 1 to 10 years, and where a substantial financial benefit is involved, the same penalty applies under § 6.
The procedure for lifting immunity is governed by the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator. A motion for consent to hold a deputy criminally liable in a publicly prosecuted case is submitted through the Prosecutor General (Article 7c(1)), and the Marshal of the Sejm sets a deadline for the deputy to submit a declaration consenting to prosecution (Article 8(1)). The motion must include, among other things, a precise description of the act, specifying the time, place, manner and circumstances, as well as the nature of the damage (Article 7c(4)); hence the prosecutor’s allegations are described with dates and amounts. The Committee voted separately on each of the two acts, which corresponds to the structure of a motion covering two distinct offences. If the Sejm grants consent, the case will proceed to court on the basis of an indictment, which, under Article 331 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must indicate the provisions of criminal law under which the alleged act falls and the court competent to hear the case. The assets in this matter have a cross-border dimension: a company in the British Virgin Islands. Accordingly, the prosecutor may, through the Minister of Justice, request the competent authority of a foreign state to secure items liable to forfeiture (Article 611d § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Domestically, security may include the appointment of an administrator, who prepares an inventory of asset components and submits it to the prosecutor or the court (Article 291 § 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), while the parties have the right to appeal against an order refusing to exclude assets from the security measure (Article 291 § 10).
If the Sejm grants consent, the prosecutor’s office will present charges to Bartoszewski and the case will proceed through the courts. The real proprietary risk therefore covers both the amounts entrusted by Ciechanowiecki (GBP 1 million, EUR 45,000 and PLN 6,683,705.86) and the apartments worth approximately PLN 7 million. If the accused flees or goes into hiding, assets covered by bail are subject to forfeiture or collection (Article 262 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), and the court may then order partial forfeiture while also applying another preventive measure (Article 262 § 1a). As regards the deputy minister’s mandate itself, the consequence of the Sejm’s resolution is the loss of procedural protection and the possibility of charges being brought; this does not formally determine his government office, but politically the matter will burden the PSL. Bartoszewski has announced that the Court of Appeal will rule on the evidentiary material in two months, that is, around December 2026. From a procedural perspective, the next step is the Sejm’s vote on a resolution consenting to his being held criminally liable, adopted by an absolute majority of the statutory number of deputies.
Under Article 11(1) of that Act, “preventing animal homelessness, ensuring care for stray animals, and catching them are among the own tasks of municipalities.”
The costs of implementing the programme are borne by the municipality (Article 2 of the amending Act of 16 September 2011).
A woman who, on her own initiative, took an injured dog home after it had been hit by a vehicle found herself in a gap between two local authorities. In such a situation, however, the law clearly provides that responsibility for a stray animal rests with the municipality in whose territory the animal was found. The essence of the dispute between Dęblin and Ułęż concerns a municipality’s own statutory duty under the Animal Protection Act of 21 August 1997.
The programme referred to in Article 11a(2) includes, in particular: securing places for stray animals in shelters, catching stray animals, searching for owners, and ensuring round-the-clock veterinary care in cases of road incidents involving animals. Article 11(3) of the Animal Protection Act further provides that stray animals may be caught only pursuant to a municipal council resolution referred to in Article 11a, and that catching animals without securing a place for them in a shelter is prohibited. In practice, this means that:
After the police confirmed the location of the incident, the City of Dęblin should issue an order to the shelter to collect the dog from Białki Dolne and cover the costs according to the contractual rates: PLN 3,800 for the first two months, and then approximately PLN 16 per day if the owner is not found. For readers, the practical lesson is twofold: helping an animal injured in a road incident is lawful and desirable, but the formal route remains notification of the municipality competent for the place of the incident, rather than transporting the animal to another municipality, which gives rise to disputes over costs. Ms Bernadeta referred the matter to the district and regional veterinary officers and to the voivode; those authorities may verify whether the municipality is implementing the adopted programme. Further monitoring is required as to whether the City of Dęblin issues the order to the shelter and whether the female dog is in fact collected from Białki Dolne. If that does not happen, the next step will be the response of the voivode or the regional veterinary officer to the letters of 5 October.
Whether Wisła Kraków supporters will be admitted to the stadium at Łazienkowska is determined not by the PZPN licence or the Police’s opinion, but by Legia’s personal responsibility as the organiser of a mass event. An Ekstraklasa match played at a stadium with at least 1,000 available seats constitutes a “football match” within the meaning of the Act on the Safety of Mass Events (Article 4(4)), so the dispute over the away sector will be assessed under that Act, and not solely under internal licensing standards. The specific legal issue is therefore this: may the organiser unilaterally close the away sector where, according to the PZPN communication, the sector “continues to meet the infrastructure criteria”, and the non-compliance concerns only the legal status of the plot of land. The football association itself indicated the proper direction of assessment: “generally applicable law, in particular the Act on the Safety of Mass Events”, thereby shifting the focus of the dispute from the licensing procedure to the organiser’s statutory obligations.
The fundamental rule is Article 5(1) of the Act on the Safety of Mass Events: the organiser is responsible for the safety of the event at the place and during the time of its occurrence. Article 5(2)(1)–(4) provides that this safety comprises four obligations incumbent on Legia:
The PZPN licensing bodies are reviewing the documents submitted by Legia, so the nearest practical determination will be their decision on the club’s continuing licensing status. If it emerges that the club submitted documentation inconsistent with the facts, it risks disciplinary consequences; the reference point is the PLN 1 million fine imposed on WKS by the PZPN Disciplinary Committee following the matter before the match against Śląsk Wrocław. For Wisła supporters, the practical significance is twofold: there is no guarantee of admission to the sector despite its meeting the infrastructure criteria, and they may incur liability under Articles 22 and 60 of the Act if they attempt to enter contrary to the organiser’s instructions. Further monitoring is required of the communication.
Does acceptance of an advance payment towards compensation (up to 85% of the determined amount) before the voivode’s compensation decision becomes final determine the amount of compensation payable to the owner of real property expropriated for the CPK, and what protective remedies remain available to the owner after that decision is issued.
The source database does not contain the direct text of the provision, so I rely on the general principle of expropriation expressed in Article 21(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland: deprivation of ownership is permissible only for a public purpose and
Correction. The article imprecisely states that “Article 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Act on Legal Advisers prohibit a lawyer from simultaneously working under an employment contract and defending a client in court”. Article 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely refers to the provisions governing the organisation of the Bar and the Act on Legal Advisers, specifying who may act as defence counsel, and does not itself contain a prohibition on combining employment with defence work. The prohibition derives from the Act on Legal Advisers and is narrower than the article suggests: a legal adviser in an employment relationship may not provide legal assistance to natural persons, but may represent before a court the employer or organisational unit by which he is employed. The precise formulation should therefore be: a legal adviser employed under an employment contract could not defend Sebastian M., a natural person, in criminal proceedings, because the Act on Legal Advisers permits him to provide assistance to natural persons only in the course of practising in a legal adviser’s office or company, without simultaneously remaining in an employment relationship.
A fine is imposed within the range from one and a half times to twelve times the minimum remuneration for work applicable on the date on which the disciplinary offence was committed (Article 65(2ba) of the Act on Attorneys-at-Law).
The disciplinary court may temporarily suspend an attorney-at-law from professional activities in particularly justified circumstances, either ex officio or upon a party’s application (Article 65²(1)), and such an order is immediately enforceable.
Marcin Jakubowski will not answer before the criminal court in Piotrków Trybunalski, but before the professional self-government body: his further professional status will be determined by the disciplinary court for attorneys-at-law. The decision to bring the charge was issued on 2 October 2026 and was served on the attorney-at-law on 5 October 2026. The basis for liability will be Article 64(1) of the Act on Attorneys-at-Law, which covers conduct contrary to law, ethical principles or the dignity of the profession, or a breach of professional duties. The charge relates to concurrent employment under an employment contract at Grupa Azoty (until 30 September) and the defence of a client; the report cites Article 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Act on Attorneys-at-Law as the sources of the prohibition. The catalogue of sanctions is set out in Article 65(1) of the Act on Attorneys-at-Law, ranging from an admonition and reprimand to deprivation of the right to practise the profession.
The disciplinary spokesman conducts proceedings ex officio (Article 67¹(1) of the Act on Attorneys-at-Law). Disciplinary proceedings comprise an investigation, proceedings before the disciplinary court, and enforcement proceedings (Article 67²). Before the regional disciplinary court, the prosecutor is the disciplinary spokesman, and the parties are the prosecutor, the accused attorney-at-law, and the injured party (Article 68(1)–(2)). A ruling may be issued only at a hearing (Article 70³). In matters not regulated by the Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Chapters I–III of the Criminal Code apply mutatis mutandis (Article 74¹). Pending determination of the case, the disciplinary court may temporarily suspend an attorney-at-law from professional activities in particularly justified circumstances, either ex officio or upon a party’s application (Article 65²(1)); such an order is immediately enforceable, and the accused attorney-at-law has the right to lodge an interlocutory appeal. Unlike the position of an attorney-at-law placed in pre-trial detention (Article 65²(2)), there is no automatic suspension in this case: it would require a separate order of the disciplinary court.
The realistic range of outcomes that may be imposed on Mr Jakubowski is as follows: