The Law and Justice party wants harsher penalties for betraying the homeland. Even life imprisonment for espionage


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


PiS MPs have submitted a bill to the Sejm toughening the penalties for espionage and introducing an unintentional variant of this offence. ‘This could be a provision for abuse and to be used politically,’ warns a criminal law judge.

by Łukasz Woźnicki, Gazeta Wyborcza


The draft amendment to the Penal Code was submitted to the Sejm by a group of PiS MPs, although it was not they who prepared the proposed regulations. The Ministry of Justice had announced a very similar bill a year ago having worked on the amendments in consultation with the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, the prosecution service and the heads of the secret services. As can be seen, it was provided to the MPs to take advantage of the faster legislative path and bypass the consultation obligation.


The authors of the bill explain the need to amend the regulations by the changing geopolitical situation, the threat of new armed conflicts and the increased activity of foreign intelligence services. The Ministry of Justice added another argument to this a year ago.


‘Crimes of espionage should be prosecuted with full severity. Unfortunately, the solutions we have at present are highly imperfect. The penalty for treason against the homeland is shockingly low,’ said Deputy Justice Minister Marcin Warchoł, head of the team that worked on the amendments.


No longer 10 but 30 years’ imprisonment

‘Whoever takes part in the activities of a foreign intelligence service against the Republic of Poland shall be subject to a penalty of imprisonment of between one and 10 years,’ states Article 130 of the Penal Code today. After the amendments, the maximum penalty for this offence would increase threefold – to 30 years’ imprisonment.


The authors of the bill even propose life imprisonment for certain types of espionage. For example, for passing on information to foreign intelligence services which could cause damage to the state (today, the maximum penalty is 15 years). State officials or soldiers found spying could be punished with life imprisonment. As could those involved in organising foreign intelligence activities in Poland. An additional sanction is to be the deprival of public rights.


The penalty for sabotage, diversion or terrorist activities is to be imprisonment for 10 to 30 years or life imprisonment. Anyone who provides disinformation, by taking part in foreign intelligence activities will be subject to imprisonment for up to 30 years. Disinformation here is to be the ‘dissemination of false or misleading information’ in order to cause serious disruption to the state or to influence the authorities.


‘The threat of punishment is mainly intended to be of a preventive value’ – the authors of the bill describe such harsh penalties. In their opinion, ‘professional spies’ analyse the level of sanctions in individual countries and decide on this basis whether to take the risk. ‘That is why it is justifiable to establish criminal threats at a very high level,’ we read.

And he could have assumed he was talking to a spy 

PiS also proposes other new types of espionage. If the change in the law ever enters into force, the preparation of such a crime will become punishable (by up to eight years’ imprisonment). The bill also provides for the introduction of an unintentional variant of this crime – punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.


Whoever passes on information that is potentially damaging to Poland to a person or entity ‘which, on the basis of the accompanying circumstances, he should and could have assumed is involved in the activities of a foreign intelligence service’ will be subject to this penalty.


‘Criminals often make the excuse that they were not aware that they were talking to an agent of a foreign service and were acting to the detriment of their own state,’ Warchoł said a year ago. ‘We already have inadvertent fencing, in the case of which we expect the perpetrator to have guessed that the item he is acquiring is from a crime. We should introduce the unintentional offence of espionage,’ he added.


PiS claims this will have a positive impact on state security. The idea already encountered opposition from some lawyers a year ago. They warned that regulations introduced under the guise of combating the Russian threat could be used to punish critics of the current government.


‘Someone, not knowing who he is dealing with, passes on information to him and it suddenly transpires that the prosecutor’s office is pressing charges against him because it transpired that that person was a spy. He obviously did not intend to pass any information to a spy, he did not know he was talking to an agent, that the information could be useful, but in the case of an unintentional crime, this is irrelevant,’ commented Dr Hab. Mikołaj Małecki, a criminal law lawyer from the Jagiellonian University, on the announcement of the MoJ. 


‘This could be a provision to be used politically and for abuse. For example, a representative of an inconvenient social organisation travelled abroad to a conference and expressed himself unflatteringly about the activities of the Polish authorities, and this information could contribute to intelligence activities against Poland. This provision could also be used as a provocation against politicians and citizens who are unfriendly to the current authorities,’ said Małecki.


The problem will not go away after the penalties are made harsher 

‘Populism in thinking about criminal law is obvious,’ Małecki assesses the announcement of the tightening of the penalties. ‘I can already see Russian or other spies being scared and stopping spying because the minister has threatened them with higher penalties.’


‘Espionage here is an example of a broader pathology in thinking about criminal law: we make the penalties harsher and some social problem magically disappears. Perhaps the focus should be on better detection of espionage? So detectability and not an increase in the penalties,’ said Małecki.


The bill also introduces the possibility of prohibiting photography or filming of facilities of particular importance to state security or defence. It also extends the powers of the Internal Security Agency regarding, among other things, the clandestine acquisition of items coming from crimes, accepting and giving financial benefits and the possibility of blocking content in the web.


It arises from the justification that these are existing powers of the Internal Security Agency, which the service also wants to use for discovering and combating espionage. This is supposed to ‘minimise the adverse effects arising from the armed conflict in Ukraine, in particular the significantly increased activity of the services of the Russian Federation and Belarus’.


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


The article was published in Gazeta Wyborcza, 18 April 2023.


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland



April 23, 2023


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsjudgesZbigniew ZiobroPolandCourt of Justice of the EUrule of lawEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiMinister of Justicemuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław RadzikKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabdemocracyneo-judgespresidential electionselectionsharassmentjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungarycriminal lawelections 2020National Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPaweł JuszczyszynPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówCourt of Justice of the European UnionCOVID-19disciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekelections 2023Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionRecovery FundStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsLabour and Social Security Chamberfreedom of assemblycommission on Russian influenceStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismconditionalityWłodzimierz WróbelLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandsuspensionLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandparliamentmedia independenceIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmediaPiotr Prusinowski2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19Astradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesEdyta Barańskacriminal codeUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskidefamationcourtssmear campaignFree CourtsmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyelectoral processLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsWojciech MaczugaBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskilexTuskBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroDariusz ZawistowskiMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychinfringment actionEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal treatmentAct on the Supreme Courtprotestselectoral commissionsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsEuropean Court of HuDenmarkKrzysztof RączkaSwedenPoznańFinlandKoan LenaertsMariusz KrasońKarol WeitzCT PresidentKaspryszyn v PolandGermanyNCR&DCelmerNCBiRC354/20 PPUThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentC412/20 PPUEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFAusl 301 AR 104/19Justyna WydrzyńskaKarlsruheAgnieszka Brygidyr-Doroszact on misdemeanoursJoanna KnobelCivil Service ActCrimes of espionageParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiWhite PaperAnna GłowackalustrationCourt of Appeal in Warsawtransitional justiceOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State Department2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generaltransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentAlina CzubieniakTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy