On 14 July 2020 The Constitutional Court ruled that Act dated 13 June 2019 amending the law – The penal code and some other laws are in full incompatible with the constitutional principle of legalism. Thus, doubts arise as to whether the changes made to the Code under the “shield” 4.0” They should apply.
The Court held that the Sejm did not comply with the procedure required by the law of law of enactment Act dated 13 June 2019 amending the Criminal Code Act and certain other laws, therefore it is justified to establish that the law does not comply with the principle of legalism, which obliges the Sejm and its authorities to act on the basis and within the limits laid down in the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm, when implementing the legislative function (Article 7 and Article 112 with regard to Article 119(1) Constitution).
The Constitutional Tribunal divided the opinion of the President of the Republic of Poland and ruled that the whole Act was incompatible with the Constitution of Poland
The Act of 13 June 2019 amending the Criminal Code and certain other acts was passed by the Sejm in three readings over two days, while omitting all procedures for considering code bills referred to in Article 87, paragraph one, of the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm.
The Sejm began work on 14 May 2019, to finish them on the day 16 May 2019. Such a pace of work is contrary to the Rules of the Sejm, which directly under Article 95 prescribes that: second reading of the project in question under Article 87 (the course of the draft code, amendments to the code, section 1) may take place not earlier than fourteenth from the date of service to the Members of the Extraordinary Commission report.
Indicate that Act dated 13 June 2019 on the amendment of the Act – the Criminal Code and some other laws, contains a number of specific and very important changes on which the relevant committee should bow. Such changes include, among other things, the introduction of absolute life sentences (without the possibility of applying for early conditional release), an increase in penalties in many offences, changes in the sentence of fines and restrictions on freedom (reduction of the judge's judicial freedom under the so-called judicial sentence, which clearly indicate that the court is punishing at its discretion), an increase in criminal liability for a crime committed under the so-called "continuous" act, or a change in the sentence of restriction of liberty and fine instead of imprisonment and the introduction of impudentive theft (three recent amendments to the penal code have been introduced Act dated 19 June 2020 on interest rate subsidies on bank loans granted to entrepreneurs affected COVID-19 and the simplified procedure for approval of the arrangement in relation to the application COVID-19 (‘Tarcza 4.0”).
Therefore, the request dated 28 June 2019 The President directed the bill to the Constitutional Court to examine its compatibility with the Constitution.
President In one of the arguments, he pointed out explicitly that: Application of the ordinary legislative procedure in which first the reading of the draft amendment of the Code took place on the day following the proposal for a law, and second reading – the day following the Commission’s preparation The legislative report, in conjunction with the arguments put forward and the close association and direct influence of the failure to comply with the draft amendments to the codes to assess the compatibility of the contested law with the Constitution, justifies the application to the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of the law.
The Constitutional Tribunal divided the opinion of the President of the Republic of Poland and ruled that the whole Act was incompatible with the Constitution of Poland.
This judgment is relevant in the context of the changes to the penal code introduced in the so-called ‘Tarcza’ 4.0” (the introduction of impudent theft, the change in the sentence of restriction of liberty and fine instead of imprisonment, the increase of criminal liability for a crime committed in the framework of a so-called continuous act and changes in the ruling of a cumulative penalty), i.e. whether, in view of the decision of incompatibility of the whole law amending the penal code with the Constitution, the amendments made to the ‘districts’ 4.0” should apply, given the current judgment of the Constitutional Court and the failure to comply with the Codex to adopt amendments to the codes.