On 12 December 2023 The Constitutional Tribunal recognised the legal question of the Jarosław District Court concerning the constitutionality of the "covid provision" suspending the limitation periods in criminal and tax law. The Constitutional Tribunal in its communication following the delivery of the judgment stated the following: The Court held that Article 15zzr1(1) Act dated 2 March 2020 specific prevention, prevention and eradication solutions COVID-19, other infectious diseases and their emergency situations are incompatible with Article 2 Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
The Court of First Instance examined the matter Article 15zzr1(1) Act dated 2 March 2020 specific prevention, prevention and eradication solutions COVID-19, other infectious diseases and the resulting crisis situations (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1327, as amended; hereafter: the March Act), which reads as follows: ‘During the period of validity of an outbreak or epidemic, declared due to COVID-19, and during the period 6 no limitation of the criminality of the act and of the limitation of the enforcement of the penalty in criminal matters shall take effect months after their appeal and fiscal criminal offence”.
This provision was added to the March Act by Article 4(2) Act dated 20 April 2021 amending the Act – Criminal Code and some other laws (Journal of Laws, item 1023) date 27 June 2021 By virtue of Article 28(1) Act dated 7 July 2023 amending the Act – Code of Civil Procedure, Law – Law on the system of universal courts, Law – Code of Criminal Procedure and some other laws (Journal of Laws, item 1860) was repealed on 1 October 2023 The decision whether to introduce a statute of limitations into the system at all is within the wide margin of the legislator's regulatory freedom. However, if it is decided to introduce it, the legislator is bound by the consequences of his actions and the consistency of the respective legal acts.
Article 15zzr1 the March Act, which entered into force – which should be stressed – 27 June 2021, contains two Regulations:
- on the suspension of the limitation of criminal offences, inter alia, in fiscal criminal matters, during the period during which the situation of an epidemic or an outbreak occurred, declared due to COVID-19, and during the period 6 months after their cancellation (section 1);
- on the calculation of the periods referred to above: 14 March 2020 – in the event of an outbreak, and from 20 March 2020 – in case of an outbreak (section 2).
I would like to remind you that there is an outbreak of viral infections. SARS-CoV-2 has been announced 14 March 2020, section 1 Regulations of the Minister of Health dated 13 March 2020 on the announcement in the territory of the Republic of Poland of an outbreak (Journal of Laws, item 433, as amended); the emergency has been cancelled 20 March 2020, section 1 Regulations of the Minister of Health dated 20 March 2020 on the cancellation in the territory of the Republic of Poland of an outbreak (Journal of Laws, item 490) Following the announcement of the same outbreak day by section 1 Regulations of the Minister of Health dated 20 March 2020 on the announcement of an outbreak in the Republic of Poland (Journal of Laws, item 491.); the outbreak has been cancelled 16 May 2022, section 1 Regulations of the Minister of Health dated 12 May 2022 on the cancellation of the outbreak in the Republic of Poland (Journal of Laws, item 1027.).
From 16 May 2022 has been in an epidemic emergency, according to section 1 Regulations of the Minister of Health dated 12 May 2022 on the announcement in the territory of the Republic of Poland of an outbreak (Journal of Laws, item 1028); This condition has only been cancelled 1 July 2023 based on section 1 Regulations of the Minister of Health dated 14 June 2023 on the cancellation in the territory of the Republic of Poland of an outbreak (Journal of Laws, item 1118).
Legislative under Article 15zzr1(1) The March Act did not specify the period until which the suspension of the limitation periods for criminal offences and the limitation of the enforcement of penalties in criminal matters would apply and fiscal criminal offence, and has not set the maximum time limit to which it may have lasted.
Although the state of emergency has been announced over and over again first 14 March 2020, Then the outbreak was declared 20 March 2020, a from 16 May 2022 was again in a state of epidemic danger that was eventually abolished 1 July 2023, it was not possible to determine, from a perspective, the time limits to which the limitation periods would last.
Thus Article 15zzr1(1) In fact, the March Act created an institution to suspend the statute of limitations for an indefinite period, thereby reconciling the principle of the protection of trust in the State and its rights.
This principle is based on the assumption that the activities of public authorities should have loyalty and integrity towards each individual, creating a sense of legal certainty and stability. However, the challenged provision of the March Act did not meet this requirement.
After first This regulation was not introduced in March 2020, i.e. during the initial pandemic period (which in an unprecedented way affected the disorganization of public life), but only after the end of fifteen months after the outbreak in the Republic of Poland.
After second – the rule under examination was contrary to regulation Article 44(2) k.k.s. because, despite the statute of limitations of public debt, he continued to maintain the criminality of the related crime.
After third – the suspension of the limitation of the criminality of the act without indicating a specific date (even the expiry of the limitation period of public debt) has translated into the fact that while at the same time calming the epidemic situation (which is a notorative fact) it has put the parties concerned at risk of legal effects which could not have been previously foreseen; the new provisions adopted by the legislature must not surprise their addressees as to the continued conduct of the public authorities.
As a general rule, the legislator has the possibility of freely forming limitation institutions, but the absence of a maximum suspension time due to an outbreak or epidemic situation has caused the suspension of the limitation period to continue for an indefinite period (up to a few years) regardless of the actual impact of sanitary restrictions on the ability of procedural authorities to take effective action.
Importantly, created by Article 15zzr1(1) The law of March, the legal state, which interfered with the legal position of the individual, depended on the decision of the executive authority, that is, the Minister responsible for health, who decides on the state of emergency and epidemic on the basis of Article 46(2) Act dated 5 December 2008 on the prevention and control of infectious diseases in humans (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1657, as amended; hereinafter: Sanitary Act).
It was therefore a curiosal link between the functioning of the relevant criminal law rules in the form of suspension of the limitation of criminal offences and limitation of the enforcement of criminal offences and fiscal criminal offence from the decision of the Minister responsible for Health, which was taken at the level of the statutory act in the form of an implementing regulation – and not even to the March Act, but to the sanitary bill, which is yet another normative act.
In other words, in a democratic legal state that respects the tri-division of power, the appointment by the legislature (consciously or not) to the enforcement body (the government responsible for the relevant government department) of the decision to operate a legal institution that shapes the legal position of the individual is constitutionally unacceptable; in abstracto, if the legislature decides to suspend at least the course of a term, then only the legislature has the right to decide to terminate this suspension, and at the same time has the obligation of ab initio, rather than in fine, to specify clearly the deadline for the final suspension in question, if it does not want to expose itself to the charge of images Article 2 with regard to Article 31(3) Constitution.
If March and April 2020 – i.e. in the initial pandemic period COVID-19 – in fact, there have been problems with the effective functioning of the state authorities (which is a notorietyary fact), as the requesting court pointed out correctly, criminal proceedings were generally continued throughout its period of time. There is no public data demonstrating that delays occurring due to the quarantine or isolation of judges, prosecutors, police officers or witnesses or accused persons would have such a significant impact on the course of criminal or criminal-carb proceedings that it was conceivable to introduce Article 15zzr1 The March Act. Hence the entry into force of such a far-reaching legal standard – fifteen months after the outbreak, followed by an outbreak, which directly suspends the limitation institution in criminal law, must be regarded as disproportionate and contrary to Article 2 Constitution. This incompatibility is further exacerbated by the fact that the legislator already once – at the beginning of the pandemic – on the day 31 March 2020 by Article 1(14) Act dated 31 March 2020 amending the Act on Special Solutions for Prevention, Prevention and Control COVID-19, other infectious diseases and their emergency situations and the amendment of certain other laws (Journal of Laws, item 568, as amended) introduced into the March Act Article 15zzs, of section 1 and 11 is worded as follows: „1. During the period of the outbreak or outbreak declared because of COVID, the procedural and judicial time in:
- judicial proceedings, including judicial administrative proceedings,
- enforcement proceedings,
- criminal proceedings,
- tax criminal proceedings,
- infringement proceedings,
- administrative procedures,
- procedures and checks on the basis of Act dated 29 August 1997 – Tax Ordinance,
- customs and tax checks,
- proceedings in the cases in question under Article 15f(9) Act dated 19 November 2009 about gambling (Journal of Laws of 2019, items 847, 1495; of 2020, item 284),
Other proceedings under the laws shall not start and shall be suspended for that period .
Article 15zzs The March Act has already been repealed 16 May 2020, Article 46(21) Act dated 14 May 2020 amending certain laws on shielding activities in connection with the spread of the virus SARS-CoV-2 (Journal of Laws, item 875, as amended), and yet the legislator has not put forward any reasonable arguments that would support the introduction of suspension of time limits in criminal law 27 June 2021, Article 15zzr1(1) The March Act.
The Court’s judgment removes the effect it had on the legal system Article 15zzr1(1) The March Act.
This means that the legal standard contained in that provision — as not in accordance with the Constitution — did not affect what, in cases completed in which the rule under review was applied, opens the way for interested parties to resume proceedings on the basis of Article 190(4) The Constitution, and in cases pending (including in the hearing of a questionable court) causes it to be disregarded when ruling and applying general rules on the limitation period.
The judgment in question allows persons legally sentenced to resume proceedings and there is a possibility of obtaining compensation or redress.