Article 29 § 1 of the Misdemeanours Code provides for a driving ban for a period of 6 months to 3 years, imposed in months or years, with an obligation to return the driving licence.
Article 45 § 1 of the Criminal Code requires the forfeiture of property benefits derived from the offence, or their equivalent, unless the benefit is to be returned to the victim.
The dispute between Jarosław Kaczyński and Maciej Berek is a conflict of political statements whose core is not any immediate criminal proceeding, but rather the question of whether the label "coup d'état" finds any basis in the criminal law provisions. The legal sources provided cover only institutions from the Misdemeanours Code, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning penal measures, forfeiture of property and asset security — none of them regulates the election of Constitutional Tribunal judges or offences against the functioning of the state. This means that assessing whether Kaczyński's statement exceeds the bounds of permissible criticism would require provisions outside this set of sources, which are not available here. Berek himself reverses the accusation, pointing to "the physical blocking of Constitutional Tribunal judges' access to the Tribunal's building" — and such conduct could indeed be examined in criminal and misdemeanour terms, for which the sources provide a framework of sanctions. For the reader, the practical consequence is that both sides are operating in the sphere of political assessments, and any legal path would begin only upon reporting the matter to law enforcement authorities.
The provisions supplied show what the punitive dimension of justice would look like if any of the conduct raised in the dispute were qualified as a prohibited act. Article 28 § 1 and § 2 of the Misdemeanours Code catalogues penal measures — a driving ban, forfeiture of items, a monetary measure, an obligation to repair damage, and publication of the judgment — which may be imposed only where a specific provision so provides. 29 § 3–4). On the criminal side, Article 44a § 1–2 of the Criminal Code provides for forfeiture of a motor vehicle, and where the vehicle was not the offender's sole property or has been disposed of — forfeiture of an equivalent value determined according to the insurance policy or the average market value without appointing an expert. If the matter took the form of preparatory proceedings, the Code of Criminal Procedure (art. 262 § 1) allows forfeiture or enforcement of a property surety in the event of the accused's flight or concealment, and art. 291 § 1 regulates the securing of property in case of forfeiture under art. 44 of the Criminal Code. Among the sources there is no case law concerning a similar situation, so no precedent can be cited; the key point, however, is that penal measures are substantive in character and must rest on a specific provision — the mere label "coup d'état" triggers none of them.
Realistically, the dispute will remain at the level of an exchange of statements unless one of the parties files a notification of a suspected offence and a law enforcement authority grants it the status of a criminal or misdemeanour case.
Does the amendment of the Regulation of the Minister of Health on central electronic registration, by shifting the deadlines for including successive specialisations in the e-registration system within the IKP (Internet Patient Account), impose an obligation on healthcare providers to participate in central registration, and what practical effects arise from the phased scheduling of that obligation until the end of 2027?
Legal basis: The basis is the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 22 December 2025 on central electronic registration, whose § 7 provides for entry into force on 1 January 2026, with exceptions for specified transitional deadlines. The wording of the visible part of the provision shows that the legislator employed the construction of entry into force in principle, while at the same time staggering in time the application of individual provisions — this is a legislative technique typical of regulations implemented in stages. It should be noted that the source database does not contain the full text of the regulation, including the catalogue of specialisations and the specific deadlines, so the analysis of the schedule (February, April, June 2027, etc.) is based solely on the content of the news report, not on a verified provision. Moreover, a general principle of administrative law provides that a regulation issued on the basis of a statutory authorisation (here: under the Act on healthcare services financed from public funds) may bind healthcare providers only within the limits of that authorisation and to the extent necessary for its implementation.
Practical significance: The argument that the deadlines for including specialisations are mandatory for healthcare providers is now stronger — since the regulation entered into force on 1 January 2026 with specified transitional deadlines, providers holding contracts with the National Health Fund (NFZ) cannot treat e-registration as a voluntary feature, but rather as an element of the organisation of service provision arising from secondary legislation. In practice, it is necessary to verify whether, for a given specialisation, the transitional deadline (e.g. dermatology — November 2027; paediatrics and internal medicine — end of 2027) is covered by the exception in § 7, before an allegation of failure to comply with the registration obligation in the central system is raised. The risk of error lies in relying on the schedule from press releases rather than on the text of the regulation published in the Journal of Laws — the order of the specialisations was already changed at the public consultation stage, so the dates in the article may not correspond to the final wording of the provision.
Correction: The article states that the regulation on central monitoring by the NFZ of waiting lists for certain hospital procedures "enters into force on 5 September", without specifying the year and without reference to the structure of the provision on entry into force. Pursuant to § 7 of the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 22 December 2025 on central electronic registration, the regulation enters into force on 1 January 2026, with exceptions concerning specified deadlines — this means that the correct formulation should indicate that the regulation applies in principle as of 1 January 2026, and that individual provisions (including those concerning successive specialisations) take effect at staggered transitional deadlines, rather than simultaneously. Moreover, the article conflates two distinct instruments: the regulation on central e-registration and the regulation on central monitoring of waiting lists for hospital procedures, which are separate pieces of legislation with separate entry-into-force dates and should not be combined in a single statement about a date of application.
Candidates are those judges who obtained at least 5 votes (Art. 21(7)), and the resolution is signed by the judge presiding over the sitting and forwarded without delay to the President (Art. 21(10)).
From the Act on the Status of Constitutional Tribunal judges (Art. 2), it follows that a judge is elected by the Sejm and the term of office lasts 9 years.
The dispute between the government and the President over the swearing-in of Maciej Berek is resolved not at the level of the political will of the parties, but at the level of the obligations arising from the Constitution and the statutes on the status of Constitutional Tribunal judges. According to Dr Stępniak's account, a Constitutional Tribunal judge is elected by the Sejm, and the President is obliged to administer the oath, without any authority to block that procedure. The consequence is a situation in which Berek is formally a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal, but his admission to adjudication depends on the practice of the Tribunal's bodies, not on any additional consent of the President. The legal issue concerns two matters: the procedure for electing a Constitutional Tribunal judge and the procedure for presenting candidates for the office of President of the Tribunal. The normative bases are the Act on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (Art. 2(2): the Tribunal consists of fifteen judges, a judge is elected by the Sejm, and the term of office lasts 9 years) and the Act of 30 November 2016 on the Organisation and Procedure before the Constitutional Tribunal (Art. 1, Art. 3, Arts. 37–38). For the procedure of electing the President of the Tribunal, the key provision is Art. 21 of the Implementing Provisions of 13 December 2016, which defines the competence of the General Assembly.
2), it follows that:
21(10));
Realistic scenarios:
Does Regulation (EU) 2025/1243 on plants obtained by new genomic techniques (NGT), applicable from 17 July 2028, deprive NGT-category-1 plants of GMO status, and what legal consequences does the obligation to disclose patents relating to NGT1 plants in a public database have for competition in the seed market in Poland? [TEISINIS_PAGRUNDAS]: The basis is Regulation (EU) 2025/1243, which the news report cites without reproducing the full text of the provisions — I therefore rely here on the norm as expressly constructed in the text of the regulation itself, rather than on an article quoted from a database. The regulation divides NGT plants into two categories: NGT1 (genetic changes that could occur naturally or result from conventional breeding), which, once positively verified, are treated as conventional plants, whereas NGT2 plants (more complex changes) are subject to a full risk assessment and an authorisation requirement. The regulation entered into force on 16 July 2025, and most of its provisions apply from 17 July 2028, which entails a transitional period.
The regulation imposes no obligation on farmers to use NGT seeds; however, it provides that information on patents relating to NGT1 plants is to be entered into a public database, and the European Commission will assess the impact of such patents on farmers' access to seeds and on competition in the breeding sector.
The key practical consequence concerns the economic and legal structure of the market: in Poland, certified seed accounted for only 20.1% of cereal seeds used for sowing (IHAR-PIB data for 2025), while 60–70% of seeds come from farmers' own production — meanwhile, NGT1 plants, treated in law as conventional, will be produced almost exclusively by a handful of large corporations, since only they will bear the costs of the verification procedure and breeding. The argument that NGT1 changes are "natural" is at the same time a legal argument for exclusion from the GMO regime (Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation 1829/2003 on GM food and feed will not apply to verified NGT1 plants), which significantly lowers the barrier to market entry for these varieties compared with the previous legal position. The risk for farming practice lies in the fact that the patent mechanism — notwithstanding the disclosure obligation in the database and the planned Commission review — contains, at the stage of the current regulation, no significant limitation on the scope of patents and no compulsory licensing, so a farmer replacing farm-saved seed with certified NGT seed acquires not only the seed but also exposure to the intellectual property structure of a few undertakings, at a wheat purchase price of approximately PLN 760/tonne, which limits the capacity to absorb seed costs.
Practical guidance: when assessing the profitability of switching to NGT1 varieties in Poland, one should analyse not only the seed price but the total cost of production against the low purchase price (PLN 760/t) and the availability of alternative, non-patented conventional varieties, because the regulation offers a choice but does not protect against the erosion of the availability of seed that is not subject to exclusive rights.
Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Nature Conservation Act, the GDOŚ may revoke a permit issued under Article 67(1) if the entity: fails to meet the conditions for operating the zoological garden, fails to observe the scope of its activity, or fails to fulfil the obligations under Article 69(1).
Article 68(2) — the zoological garden is subject to liquidation.
The owner of a private zoo in Łączna has lost actual control over the animals — since the services entered the premises, every decision concerning the animals' fate is made by the prosecutor of the District Prosecutor's Office in Wałbrzych, because in the criminal investigation all specimens have the status of evidence. In parallel, pursuant to the Nature Conservation Act, the General Directorate for Environmental Protection (GDOŚ) has, since 5 August 2026, been conducting proceedings to revoke the permit to operate a zoological garden, which entails the risk of the facility's liquidation. The legal issue therefore concerns two parallel tracks: the criminal one (the status of the animals as evidence and the prosecutor's disposition) and the administrative one — revocation of the permit under Article 68(1) of the Nature Conservation Act.
Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Nature Conservation Act, the GDOŚ may revoke a permit issued under Article 67(1) if the entity: fails to meet the conditions for operating the zoological garden, fails to observe the scope of its activity, fails to fulfil the obligations under Article 69(1) (including participation in scientific research and education in the field of species conservation), fails to ensure the conditions specified in the provisions referred to in Article 70, or fails to remedy, within the designated period — not exceeding 2 years — the irregularities identified in an inspection by the regional director for environmental protection. The consequences of revocation are far-reaching:
The transport of the Bengal tiger requires separate consent of the minister, because the transfer of specimens threatened with extinction is governed by the Washington Convention (CITES of 1973), and under the domestic legal order permits for activities involving such specimens are issued by the GDOŚ after obtaining the opinion of the State Council for Nature Conservation (provisions introduced by the Act of 3 October 2008). The owner, relying on veterinary documentation and regular inspections, will be able to contest the allegations in the course of both the administrative and the criminal proceedings.
Realistically, the case will develop along two independent tracks. In the administrative track, the GDOŚ will issue a decision revoking the permit or maintaining it; in the event of revocation, the zoological garden is subject to liquidation and the animals will be transferred to sanctuaries or state zoological gardens, with the obligation to ensure their biological conditions resting on the managing entity until the process is completed. In the criminal track, the prosecutor will decide whether to release the animals from the status of evidence or to keep them secured; the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Central Animal Sanctuary have declared their support in ensuring animal welfare. For visitors and the local community, this means the practical end of the facility's operation in its current form.