Article 240 § 1 of the Criminal Code, which punishes imprisonment of up to three years for failure to promptly notify law enforcement authorities where there is credible information that an offence from the statutory catalogue has been committed, including offences under Article 197 §§ 3–5 CC and Article 200 CC.
The prosecution sought 10 months suspended for three years of probation plus a fine of PLN 20,000, which would be the first such judgment against a bishop in Poland.
Bishop Andrzej Jeż is the first hierarch in Poland to stand trial for failure to report sexual offences against minors, and the prosecution is seeking a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment suspended for three years plus a fine of PLN 20,000. The timing of when the duty arose is particularly contested: the provision in its current form has been in force since the amendment of 23 March 2017, and the curia reported both priests only more than three years after its entry into force. The defence argues that until the Supreme Court's 2022 resolution there was debate as to whether the duty also covers acts committed before 2017, and that the Supreme Court ruled in favour of such an expansive reading. An additional layer concerns the effect of the omission: according to the prosecutor, the acts of Father Stanisław P. against 23 boys under the age of 15 have become time-barred, and the victims can no longer pursue their claims in court — which ties into the limitation regime under Articles 101 and 102 CC.
For a conviction, the court must establish the concurrence of the conditions set out in Article 240 § 1 CC: credibility of the information, the offence's inclusion in the statutory catalogue, and the absence of prompt notification. The provision itself provides for exemptions from liability — no offence is committed by a person who had sufficient grounds to assume that law enforcement already knew of the act (§ 2 of Article 240 CC), or who refrained from reporting out of fear of criminal liability threatening themselves or their next of kin (§ 3, cited in the sources alongside Articles 232 and 240 CC); the victim of the act is not punishable at all (§ 2a). The defence also invokes the principle in Article 1 § 1 CC — only a person who commits an act prohibited by a statute in force at the time of its commission is liable — and concludes from this that the assessment cannot be made according to the Supreme Court's later 2022 interpretation. The prosecutor responds with a practical argument: the duty arose no later than the entry into force of the amendment in 2017, and in the case of Father Stanisław P. the report was made only after the publication of an article by Father Isakowicz-Zaleski, which evidences a lack of "promptness." The charges concern two priests, so the court will assess each act separately — in the case of Tomasz K., the defence maintains that the bishop obtained credible information about a victim under 15 only shortly before reporting the matter to the police, which would affect the assessment of when the duty arose. The question of jurisdiction (the acts were committed mainly in Ukraine) is a further defence objection that the court must resolve before assessing guilt on the merits. The sources do not give the case number of the Supreme Court's 2022 resolution, so it can only be cited as a finding from the proceedings, without reference to a specific ruling.
Under Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code (as worded pursuant to the Act of 13 June 2003, Art. 3), whoever grants or promises to grant a pecuniary benefit of substantial value to a person holding public office is liable to imprisonment from 2 to 12 years.
The size of the bribe — PLN 75,000 — is significant for the qualification of the offence: a benefit of "substantial value" shifts the penalty range to 2 to 12 years' imprisonment.
For the 29 defendants — including Wrocław Mayor Jacek Sutryk — the trial that opened on Thursday, 15 October 2026 before the Regional Court in Warsaw entails a real risk of multi-year sentences of imprisonment, forfeiture of pecuniary benefits, and loss of offices and positions. The National Prosecutor's Office (Silesian division) charges them with 67 offences, primarily corruption-related, as well as false attestation, fraud, and money laundering; the indictment runs to 623 pages. Sutryk faces four charges: giving a bribe of PLN 75,000 to former rector Paweł Cz., and three charges of fraud in the misappropriation of funds from supervisory boards of municipal companies. The key legal issues are liability for giving a pecuniary benefit to a person holding public office and for accepting such benefits. On the receiving side, the same range (2 to 12 years) applies under Article 228 § 5 of the Criminal Code, while accepting a benefit in connection with a violation of the law carries from 1 to 10 years under Article 228 § 3 of the Criminal Code. Fraud and money laundering fall within the catalogue of offences listed in the Act of 18 March 2004 (Art. 2: "fraud", "introducing into financial circulation assets deriving from illegal or undisclosed sources", "forgery of and trading in forged documents").
Sutryk defends himself by pleading not guilty and claiming to be a victim; at trial it will be he who must challenge the prosecution's evidence, and the judgment will be rendered by an ordinary court, not by public opinion. 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code for the giver, Art. 228 § 5 for the receiver). Against defendants to whom a fine, forfeiture, a compensatory measure, or the return of pecuniary benefits may be imposed, the prosecution and the court may secure the future judgment ex officio over the defendant's assets — Article 291 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (consolidated text of 27 March 2026) provides for this where there are well-founded grounds to fear that execution of the judgment will be impossible or significantly hindered; § 2a of that Article extends the securing measure to entities obligated within the meaning of Article 91a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event of conviction, the court may order forfeiture of pecuniary benefits or their equivalent (Art. 44 of the Criminal Code, consolidated text of 6 March 2025), and where forfeiture of the items would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence — a monetary penalty payable to the State Treasury (Art. 44 § 3 of the Criminal Code). In sentencing for a felony, the court must impose a term of imprisonment not lower than one third of the minimum of the statutory penalty range (Art. 60(2) of the Criminal Code), which, given Art. 228 §§ 4–5 of the Criminal Code, means a minimum of more than 4 years' imprisonment. Guidance as to the practical sentence is provided by the first judgment in the affair: on 24 September 2026, the Regional Court in Warsaw convicted six persons (former rectors and vice-rectors) who had pleaded guilty to giving benefits to persons holding public office in the Polish Accreditation Committee — this confirms that the court endorses the prosecution's line on the bribery count.
The most realistic scenarios for the defendants: - acquittal or a milder qualification — possible for defendants whose charges rest on indirect evidence (like Sutryk, who claims he was the victim of fictitious studies);
Pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Act on the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system, proceeds from the sale of emission allowances by auction constitute revenue of the state budget.
The minister competent for climate matters reconciles the report with the members of the Council of Ministers and submits it to the European Commission by 31 July of each year (Article 50(2)).
The dispute over transferring a portion of the revenues from CO₂ emission allowance auctions to the EU budget affects not the government but primarily operators of installations and airlines covered by the emissions trading system, as it is they who bear the cost of allowances and ultimately pass it on to energy and product prices. Poland is threatening to block the EU budget if the European Commission maintains its intention to direct 30% of ETS revenues to Brussels, which in Poland's case would mean more than one billion euro per year flowing out of the state budget. The legal question boils down to who owns the revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances and whether a Member State may redirect them to the Union budget without consent expressed through the national legislative procedure. The key provisions are the Act on the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system (consolidated text of 7 November 2025), in particular Article 49(2), Article 49(6) and (7) and Article 50, as well as the Budget Act for 2026 of 9 January 2026 (Article 39) and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.
A portion of the proceeds (20% of the sales referred to in Article 27(3)) is already transferred today to the dedicated sub-account referred to in Article 23(1a) of the Act of 17 July 2009 on the greenhouse gas emission management system and other substances. Article 49(6) and (7) of that Act ties the use of funds to specific climate objectives, including covering the administrative expenses of the National Centre, and permits the application of tax or financial support policies that have an impact on the financing of those activities. Oversight of the proper expenditure of funds rests with the minister competent for climate matters, who, in agreement with the minister of finance, prepares an annual report (Article 50(1)), reconciles it with the Council of Ministers and submits it to the European Commission by 31 July of each year (Article 50(2)). If expenditure fails to reach the minimum level set out in Article 49(6) and (7), the Council of Ministers, by resolution, will designate the purposes for which the funds are to be spent in subsequent years (Article 50(3)). The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management may act as an implementing entity for EU funds under indirect management pursuant to Article 62(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Regulation 2018/1046, which demonstrates an already existing channel for EU financial flows through Polish institutions. The introduction of a new ETS-based "own resource" mechanism would require national legislation, which would have to be signed by the President. Among the sources provided there is no case law, so no judicial precedent can be cited for this situation.
Realistic scenarios for the market and for businesses are as follows:
Can an application for redetermination of the amount of a pension or disability benefit (ERPO) following the disclosure of new evidence lead to a reduction of the benefit already being paid, and what are the time limits and procedure for such recalculation?
Legal basis: The supplied database contains no direct statutory source, so I rely on the general principle arising from the Act on Pensions and Disability Benefits from the Social Insurance Fund and from the Code of Administrative Procedure, on which ZUS bases its entire pension proceedings. Under this general principle, the pension authority redetermines the benefit upon an application by the beneficiary accompanied by new evidence (new contribution periods, earnings, work after the pension was granted), and in the case of benefits determined under the new rules, the recalculation covers contributions accumulated after the pension was granted, which are added to the capital. The general principle, confirmed in the content of the message, also provides that where the recalculation proves less favourable, ZUS maintains the existing, higher amount of the benefit — the beneficiary does not lose out as a result of their own application. ZUS proceedings are subject to a 30-day time limit for issuing a decision, counted from the submission of a complete application or the clarification of the last circumstance of the case, and an appeal to the district court for labour and social insurance matters is available within one month.
Practical significance: The argument that there is no risk of the benefit being reduced is now stronger: since, where the recalculation is less favourable, ZUS retains the existing amount, an ERPO application is legally a "cost-free" move that is unilaterally advantageous to the beneficiary, and it can be filed without hesitation once even a single document has been found (an employment certificate, an earnings certificate, archival records of a defunct employer). In practice, two points should be noted: first, documents that genuinely justify the recalculation must be attached to the application, because if a document confirms employment without stating the amount of remuneration, ZUS will apply the minimum wage proportionally to the period and to the full-time equivalent — so it is worth obtaining earnings evidence from archives rather than relying on the employment certificate alone; second, for benefits under the new rules, the recalculation of contributions usually takes place after the end of the calendar year, and an earlier application is available only after the insurance has ended, so a premature application may be decided without full effect. From 13 March 2026, the ERPO form can be submitted electronically via eZUS without visiting a branch office, and where the decision is unfavourable, the one-month time limit for appealing to the district court is non-extendable, so the outcome of the recalculation must be verified immediately upon service of the decision.
Where a fine, forfeiture, or another measure listed in Article 291 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (consolidated text of 27 March 2026) may be imposed in the proceedings, the securing of the satisfaction of a future judgment against the accused's property may be ordered ex officio where there are justified grounds to fear that enforcement will be impossible or substantially hindered.
For the injured party who filed the notification of the commission of an offence, the application, mutatis mutandis, of Article 304b of the Code of Criminal Procedure is provided for, granting that party the status of a party informed of the progress of the proceedings.
The conflict within the Constitutional Tribunal building has shifted from the political arena to the realm of preparatory proceedings: Maciej Berek filed a notification of an offence against the personal inviolability of a public official, namely a Constitutional Tribunal judge. The actual legal situation now arising is an investigation conducted by the prosecutor's office, in which the key piece of evidence may be CCTV footage from the judges' corridor, the securing of which Berek has already requested. The legal issue will be to assess whether physically preventing a judge from entering the corridor — described by Berek as being "pushed out" and having his path blocked — meets the elements of an offence directed against a public official. The notification was filed voluntarily by the injured party himself, which means that it is he who set out the version of events that the authorities will now verify.
Based on the description of the incident, the assessment of Święczkowski's conduct will depend on whether physical force or threats were used against a person holding public office, rather than merely a dispute over access to premises. The decisive factor will be the evidentiary materials, in particular the CCTV recording — Berek indicated that Święczkowski repeatedly stated that the space was being recorded, and filed a motion for the securing of that recording as soon as possible. Among the sources made available, there is no court ruling resolving a similar conflict between judges of the same court, so no binding precedent for this case can be identified.
The most likely scenario is the initiation of proceedings by the prosecutor's office, with the first step being the securing of the CCTV recording requested by the injured party — without this material, the case reduces to the conflicting testimonies of two judges. For Święczkowski, the risk is the reclassification of the "alleged scuffle" into an offence against a public official; for Berek, the challenge is maintaining his version of events during questioning; the notification may also result in a refusal to initiate proceedings if the CCTV footage does not confirm the use of force. The altercation outside the Constitutional Tribunal building involving PiS politicians may generate separate notifications (the sources mention prosecutorial interest in Robert Bąkiewicz), but that is an independent thread from the dispute inside the building. Practically, this development primarily concerns the two judges, as well as the other five judges elected by the current term of the Sejm, whose status as public officials will be assessed under analogous circumstances.