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 TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUMinister of Justicemuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlandemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungarycriminal lawelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtcourtsKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta BarańskaUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcespopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz Radwan