EUROPEAN COMMISSION Luxembourg, 13.7.2022 SWD(2022) 521 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report

















Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Poland Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report



















The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}



Abstract Serious concerns persist related to the independence of the Polish judiciary. Since July 2021, the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have delivered rulings, confirming a series of concerns identified by the Commission in the context of the procedure under Article 7(1) TEU and previous Rule of Law reports. Under the European Semester the Council, on a proposal of the Commission, recommended to Poland to enhance the investment climate, in particular by safeguarding judicial independence. In its Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), Poland committed to undertake reforms of the disciplinary regime regarding judges, to dismantle the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, and to create review proceedings for judges affected by decisions of that Chamber aimed at strengthening certain aspects of the independence of the judiciary. Serious concerns related to the independence of the National Council for the Judiciary remain to be addressed. The Constitutional Tribunal issued further rulings directly challenging the primacy of EU law, the provisions of the EU Treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights. In December 2021, the Commission opened an infringement procedure regarding the Constitutional Tribunal and its case law. Concerns regarding the functioning of the prosecution service persist. The government finished implementing the anti-corruption programme 2018-2020 even though not all of the actions envisaged therein had been completed and no subsequent programme was announced. Key legislative tasks of the programme, such as on asset declarations and lobbying, have not been completed. Concerns exist over the broad scope of immunities for top executives who are also members of Parliament, and impunity clauses for public officials who commit the crime of abuse of office. Risks remain as regards the effectiveness of the fight against high-level corruption, including the threat of selective application of the law and impunity caused by a disparity in the treatment of corruption cases for political purposes. The independence of main anti-corruption institutions remains an issue, considering in particular the subordination of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau to the executive and the Minister of Justice also being the Prosecutor-General. The independence of the media regulator is statutorily guaranteed and the legislation transposing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive provided further independency safeguards. Operating licensing practices show risks to media pluralism. Further measures concerning media ownership transparency were introduced, including an obligation to provide additional information on beneficial owners. Concerns over the independence of public service media remain, including over safeguards for appointments to executive positions. The general environment for journalists continues to deteriorate. Several reported lawsuits against journalists have an intimidating effect and journalists continue to be a target of abuse. Restrictions to the right of access to public information have been introduced under the state of emergency. Legislation carrying out significant reforms continues to be frequently adopted while bypassing procedures that provide for adequate consultations, something which Poland has committed to address through the Recovery and Resilience Plan. Recently proposed initiatives could adversely affect the civic space and there are concerns about measures limiting activities of civil society. The Supreme Audit Office operates under adverse conditions. The newly appointed Ombudsman continues to play a key role as a rule of law safeguard, despite limited resources. Civil society organisations play a crucial role in providing help to refugees arriving in very high numbers from Ukraine to Poland. Recommendations In addition to recalling the need to address the serious concerns relating to judicial independence, in particular those set out in the Article 7 TEU procedure initiated by the Commission, as well as the obligation to comply with the rule of law related rulings of the ECJ and the rule of law related infringement procedures referred to in the country chapter, the commitments made under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system and the checks and balances, and recalling the relevant country-specific recommendations under the European Semester, it is recommended to Poland to: ·Separate the function of the Minister of Justice from that of the Prosecutor-General and ensure functional independence of the prosecution service from the Government. ·Strengthen the existing integrity rules by introducing lobbying rules and a standardised online system for asset declarations of public officials and Members of Parliament. ·Ensure independent and effective investigations and prosecutions, address the broad scope of immunities for top executives and abstain from introducing impunity clauses in legislation in order to enable a robust track record of high-level corruption cases. ·Ensure that fair, transparent and non-discriminatory procedures are adhered to for the granting of operating licences to media outlets. ·Strengthen the rules and mechanisms to enhance the independent governance and editorial independence of public service media taking into account European standards on public service media. ·Ensure a more systematic follow-up to findings by the Supreme Audit Office and ensure a swift appointment of the College Members of the Supreme Audit Office. ·Improve the framework in which civil society and the Ombudsperson operate, taking into account European standards on civil society and Ombudsinstitutions. I.Justice System The Polish justice system is separated in two main branches, administrative and ordinary judiciary. The Supreme Administrative Court and 16 administrative courts exercise control over public administration, including the lawfulness of measures of local government bodies and of territorial organs of government administration. The ordinary judiciary, supervised by the Supreme Court, consists of three levels: 11 appeal courts, 47 regional courts and 318 district courts. Judges are appointed by the President of the Republic at the request of the National Council for the Judiciary. The Constitutional Tribunal, which adjudicates notably on the constitutionality of legislation, is composed of 15 judges chosen by the Sejm (lower chamber of the Parliament) for a term of office of 9 years. The National Council for the Judiciary is tasked by the Constitution to safeguard judicial independence. A particular characteristic of the prosecution system, which is not part of the independent judiciary, is that the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice are the same person. The Constitution provides that advocates and legal counsellors can self-regulate their practice. Independence The level of perceived judicial independence in Poland is now very low among the general public and continues to be very low among companies. Overall, 24% of the general population and 19% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 2022. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the perceived judicial independence among both the general public and companies has consistently decreased since 2016 (45% for the general public and 35% for companies). The perceived judicial independence among the general public has decreased in comparison with 2021 (30%), and has slightly increased or remained stable for companies (18%). The main reason cited by the general public and companies for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges is the perception of interference or pressure from the Government and politicians.

Serious concerns related to the independence of the National Council for the Judiciary have not been addressed. The European Court of Justice confirmed that there are legitimate doubts as to the independence of the NCJ. The Court of Justice further held that, whereas the fact that a body, such as a national council of the judiciary, which is involved in the procedure for the appointment of judges is, for the most part, made up of members chosen by the legislature cannot, in itself, give rise to any doubt as to the independence of the judges appointed at the end of that procedure, the situation may be different where that fact, combined with other relevant factors and the conditions under which those choices were made, leads to such doubts being raised. In a number of rulings, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered the process of judicial appointments to a bench of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court composed of three judges and a three member bench of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court inherently defective on account of the involvement of the NCJ lacking independence from the legislature and executive and the appointment upon the NCJ resolution in a procedure lacking effective judicial protection and despite the stay of the implementation of that resolution. So far, no steps have been taken to address the concerns identified by the ECtHR, even though it has called for a rapid remedial action on the part of Poland. Also, the Supreme Administrative Court established in a significant number of rulings the lack of independence of the NCJ. On 28 October 2021, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary decided to expel the NCJ from their organisation, essentially for its lack of independence and failure to defend judicial independence against attacks. As regards the exercise of its duty to safeguard judicial independence - except for a resolution issued in support of a Disciplinary Chamber judge - the NCJ has so far not adopted resolution in support to any judge in Poland. Instead, the NCJ has called on the Prosecutor-General to take action against judges based on the content of their rulings. In view of the expiry of the joint term of office of the NCJ judges-members, on 12 May 2022, the Polish Sejm appointed new judges-members of the NCJ. The process was boycotted by the largest associations of judges and organisations of other legal professions, including the National Bar Council and the National Council of Legal Councillors, who called on judges not to apply for election. Former members of the NCJ, appointed thereto in the period of 1989-2018, supported that call. Out of 15 judges-members appointed, all were proposed by the current governing majority in the absence of any proposals from opposition parties, amongst which 11 reappointed members. New reforms of the justice system, including a change of the judicial map, have been announced, with several of these already being put forward in draft legislation. Draft laws were proposed that would introduce the institution of courts of peace, composed of judges of peace selected by the general population in open elections and appointed to a non-renewable six-year term of office by the President of the Republic acting upon recommendation of the NCJ. Whilst initiatives aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the justice system are to be welcomed, the proposed selection method of the judges of peace would give rise to concerns in the light of European standards on selection of judges. In addition, the Government prepared a comprehensive reform of the ordinary courts, including a change of the judicial map aiming at increasing the efficiency of the judiciary. The reform would entail a forced transfer or retirement of ordinary court judges as well as changes in the system of judicial promotions. The Ombudsperson expressed serious concerns on this draft law, noting in particular that it does not address the lack of independence of the National Council for the Judiciary and allows the Minister of Justice to decide on judicial promotions within the new structure of ordinary courts. Whereas the organisation of the judicial system may require certain transfers of judges, it is important that any interferences with the principle of irremovability of judges are justified and proportionate, in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice. Serious concerns have emerged as regards the implementation of certain European Court of Justice rulings on the Polish judiciary. On 14 July 2021, the Vice-President of the European Court of Justice granted interim measures requested by the Commission in the context of the case C-204/21 R. In that infringement case, the Commission had referred Poland to the Court of Justice in view of concerns related to the law on the judiciary of December 2019 and the continued activities of the Disciplinary Chamber as regards judges. In view of developments on the ground, the Commission considered that Poland had failed to take the necessary measures to fully comply with that order for interim measures. Consequently, on 7 September 2021, the Commission requested the Court of Justice to impose a daily financial penalty. On 27 October 2021, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice imposed EUR 1 million as a daily penalty payment on Poland for as long as the interim measures order of 14 July 2021 has not been fully complied with. So far, Poland has not complied with the interim measures order. On 7 September 2021 the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to Poland considering that Poland had failed to take the necessary measures to fully comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in the case C-791/19, concerning the disciplinary regime for judges in Poland. A reform of the disciplinary regime has been adopted by the Sejm with the aim of fulfilling the commitments made under the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP). In the context of the European Semester, on 23 May 2022, prior to finalising its assessment of Poland’s RRP, the Council, on a proposal of the Commission, issued a country specific recommendation to Poland to enhance the investment climate, in particular by safeguarding judicial independence. On 1 June 2022, the Commission gave a positive assessment of Poland’s RRP. It contains several commitments from Poland to improve the investment climate including a comprehensive reform of the disciplinary regime applicable to Polish judges, aimed at strengthening certain aspects of the independence of the judiciary. First, the reform should ensure that all cases against judges, including disciplinary cases and decisions on the lifting of judicial immunity, will be adjudicated by a court that complies with the requirements under Article 19(1) TEU to be independent, impartial, and established by law. Second, judges cannot be subject to disciplinary liability for submitting a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice, for the content of their judicial decisions, or for verifying whether another court is independent, impartial, and established by law. Third, procedural rights of parties in disciplinary proceedings are to be strengthened. Fourth, a review procedure must be set allowing all judges affected by rulings of the current Disciplinary Chamber to have these rulings reviewed without delay by a court that complies with the requirements of Article 19(1) TEU. The Council endorsed the Commission’s positive assessment and adopted an Implementing Decision on the Polish RRP on 17 June. Poland will need to demonstrate that the corresponding milestones have been fulfilled before any disbursement under the RRF can be made. On 9 June 2022, the Sejm adopted a set of amendments to the disciplinary regime for judges. The President of the Republic signed the Law of 9 June 2022 amending the law on the Supreme Court and certain laws, which was published in the Journal of Laws on 14 June 2022 and enters into force on 14 July 2022. This reform will be analysed by the Commission. Poland committed to dismantle the Disciplinary Chamber which, despite rulings of the Court of Justice, continued to decide on cases concerning judges, including by suspending them in office. In its RPP, Poland committed that all cases against judges, including disciplinary cases and decisions on the lifting of judicial immunity, will be adjudicated by an independent and impartial court established by law, different from the current Disciplinary Chamber. It also committed to circumscribe the discretionary power to designate the disciplinary court with jurisdiction at first instance in cases concerning judges of ordinary courts. The new law provides for the establishment of a Chamber of Professional Liability, which will be analysed by the Commission. Despite rulings of the Court of Justice, the Disciplinary Chamber decided in several cases to either suspend judges in office in the context of disciplinary proceedings, or to lift their immunity for the purpose of criminal investigation, including in view of the content of their judicial decisions (including Supreme Court judges). These cases were initiated, following the interim measures order of 14 July 2021, by the Minister of Justice or court presidents appointed by him against judges who questioned the status of other judges due to their appointment upon a proposal by the NCJ in its composition based on the rules introduced in 2017. Following the interim measures order of the Court of Justice, the Chamber of Labour Law and Social Security of the Supreme Court allowed one of its judges – suspended in office by the Disciplinary Chamber – to continue adjudicating cases. On 23 May 2022, the Disciplinary Chamber reinstated one of the judges suspended by the Disciplinary Chamber in disciplinary proceedings, who was immediately obliged to take leave, until 19 July 2022, and transferred without his consent to another court division by the president of the district court where he adjudicates. Two court presidents appointed to the office by the Minister of Justice disregarded rulings of national courts obliging them to allow judges, subject to suspension by virtue of resolutions of the Disciplinary Chamber, to continue adjudicating cases. In its ruling of 22 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the procedure for appointing judges to the Disciplinary Chamber amounted to a fundamental irregularity adversely affecting the whole process and compromising its legitimacy, considering that the Disciplinary Chamber hearing the case was not a tribunal established by law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a number of interim measures orders to protect judges from having their disciplinary cases examined or their immunity lifted by the Disciplinary Chamber. Furthermore, in spite of a Court of Justice judgment, the President of the Disciplinary Chamber continued to designate disciplinary courts of first instance. The Constitutional Tribunal issued a further ruling that directly challenges the primacy of EU law and key provisions of the EU Treaties and continued challenging the ECHR, amidst persisting concerns over its independence and legitimacy. The Constitutional Tribunal has continued to develop its case-law questioning the compatibility with the Polish Constitution of provisions of the EU Treaties and the ECHR. On 7 October 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled i.a. that Article 19(1) TEU is unconstitutional in so far as, ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law, it confers on national courts the power to bypass, in the course of adjudication, provisions of the Polish Constitution, and to rule on the basis of provisions which are not binding, repealed or declared unconstitutional. Moreover, in the same ruling the Constitutional Tribunal declared the unconstitutionality of Article 19(1), second subparagraph, and Article 2 TEU, in so far as – to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law and to ensure judicial independence – these provisions empower national courts to rule on issues regarding the judiciary. On 22 December 2021, in view of this case law as well as of the concerns related to the Constitutional Tribunal no longer meeting the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law as required by Article 19(1) TEU, the Commission launched an infringement procedure, which is still ongoing. In addition, the Constitutional Tribunal held in rulings of 24 November 2021 and 10 March 2022 that Article 6 ECHR is unconstitutional to the extent that it applies to the Constitutional Tribunal and empowers the ECtHR to assess the legality of the appointment of Constitutional Tribunal judges and to the extent that, among others, it empowers national courts and the ECtHR to carry out a specific assessment in the context of determining the compliance of other courts with the requirement of a ‘court established by law’. In addition, the Constitutional Tribunal remains seized in a number of other cases contesting the constitutionality of provisions of EU law, notably Article 322 TFEU, and the power of the Court of Justice to impose daily financial penalties on Poland. In view of the rulings on the unconstitutionality of the ECHR, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe formally requested Poland, under Article 52 ECHR, to explain the manner in which its national law ensures the effective implementation of the Convention. The Supreme Court has been subject to rulings of the European Courts and has undergone further changes in its management. On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice clarified in specific circumstances the impact of irregularities in a judicial appointment procedure of a Supreme Court judge on the fulfilment by that judge of the requirements stemming from Article 19(1) TEU. The impact of irregularities in judicial appointments to the Supreme Court was also addressed in rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. On 30 September 2021, the President of the Republic appointed a new President of the Civil Chamber following a contested procedure. It is noted that this new President of the Civil Chamber changed the composition of the referring court responsible for the implementation of a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice relating to irregularities in the appointment of a Supreme Court judge.The First President of the Supreme Court publicly stated that the implementation of Court of Justice rulings concerning the judiciary constitutes a breach of Polish law, calling on the political authorities to address the situation through a legislative proposal. The First President also publicly criticised decisions of other Supreme Court judges whereby they annulled rulings of lower instance courts or decided on the recusal of judges in defiance of the case law of the Constitutional Tribunal. The First President also requested, that a disciplinary investigation be opened against Supreme Court judges in view of the content of a judicial decision they took, of the composition of the bench, and of doubts as to their impartiality. Concerns regarding the functioning of the prosecution service persist. The offices of Minister of Justice and Prosecutor-General continue to be occupied by the same person. The practice of seconding prosecutors, already considered by Polish courts to be a form of demotion and discrimination, continues to be used by superior prosecutors. Instructions binding on prosecutors reportedly continue to be issued in concrete cases. The instrumentalisation of the prosecution service is further exemplified in cases in which a preliminary ruling request was made and by the opening of a criminal investigation in a case concerning judges of the Court of Justice. Furthermore, the National Prosecutor’s Office issued instructions binding on all prosecutors recalling the allegedly non-binding force of judgments of the European Court of Justice and of the ECtHR as well as requesting prosecutors to report to the National Prosecutor’s office and to the Disciplinary Officer cases in which judges question the status of other judges. Prosecution services are also seized in the context of actions undertaken by judges. Whilst the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) currently has 23 ongoing investigations involving Poland, the Polish prosecution services refuse to cooperate with the EPPO. Furthermore, as regards the environment for legal professions, no measures were taken to remove the power of prosecutors to suspend a lawyer’s licence without prior consent of the court. Also, disciplinary actions were undertaken against a legal councillor who submitted requests for recusal of judges on account of their possible irregular appointment. Quality Poland is progressing well as regards digitalisation of the justice system, while room for improvement remains. Administrative cases benefit from a comprehensive set of IT tools. Such tools could be further improved, notably as regards civil cases. This could ensure that distance communication technology can be used to contact relevant parties to proceedings in all types of civil cases, to provide for a possibility of filing a claim online and to ensure that access to the electronic file of ongoing cases exists in all types of civil and commercial cases. The current rules, measures and technological tools allow for a remote hearing; in addition, business and debt registers are kept in full electronic form and traders are handled electronically; also, since July 2021, the service of judicial documents via the Information Portal of the Common Courts has been operational; moreover, legislative work is underway at the Ministry of Justice with a view to using information technology enabling, inter alia, parties’ access to procedural documents and with a view to shortening court proceedings. Further improvement would be needed to introduce electronic case files both in ordinary courts and in the Supreme Court, thus facilitating the circulation of files between courts.Work is ongoing to introduce a uniform IT system for all courts in Poland. At the same time, no steps have been taken to revise the system of case allocation that was found to be prone to abuse, in spite of concerns expressed to that end by the Supreme Audit Office. Efficiency The overall performance of ordinary and administrative courts remains stable. As regards ordinary courts, their overall performance remains average. In 2020, there was a decrease in the estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at all three instances, and the rate of resolving such cases at first instance improved. Poland remains under enhanced supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for the length of civil and criminal proceedings. As regards administrative courts, their performance remains above average. II.Anti-Corruption Framework Several authorities are responsible for anti-corruption in Poland, including the Prosecutor-General, who is also the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration who is in charge of prevention aspects, such as the lobby register for public officials. The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau is the specialised law enforcement body combating corruption in the public and the private sector alongside the Central Police Investigation Bureau and the regular police, the Internal Security Agency and the Prosecution Service . The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau combines intelligence and police functions, and can trigger both administrative and criminal proceedings. It has also been tasked with policy coordination and corruption prevention, including educational awareness-raising activities against corruption and an e-learning platform . The Supreme Audit Office (NIK) has a preventive role monitoring the public spending of the government administration bodies, including the National Bank of Poland and state legal persons . The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains relatively high. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Poland scores 56/100 and ranks 13th in the European Union and 42nd globally . This perception has deteriorated over the past five years . The 2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 55% of respondents consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 39% of respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%) . As regards businesses, 44% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 19% consider that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%) . Furthermore, 47% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%) , while 19% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%) . The audit of the Government Anti-Corruption Programme 2018-2020 found that the programme was partly implemented. The government has finalised the implementation of the programme and reported that more than 57.5% of the planned actions were implemented in adverse circumstances. The programme aimed to raise awareness about and reduce corruption with the specific goals of (i) strengthening preventive and educational activities, (ii) improving the monitoring of corruption risks and anti-corruption regulation, and (iii) enhancing the cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities at national and international level. The implementation was coordinated by the Intersectoral Group of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau and was audited by the Supreme Audit Office with the focus on the extent of the implementation, the conditions for the implementation, including the pandemic, as well as the results and impact of the Programme. While most of the objectives to provide educational material and trainings have been met, the implementation of important legislative initiatives specified in the programme has not been completed. These include, in particular, the bill on Liability of Collective Entities, the reform of the asset declaration system, and the revision of the lobbying legislation. No public announcement was made for the adoption of a new anti-corruption strategy beyond 2020. The legal framework to fight corruption has been reinforced, yet gaps remain. The Polish Criminal Code broadly criminalises corruption. Amendments of the Criminal Code to fight corruption in public life entered into force on 1 January 2022 to counter corruption practices and increase transparency of public life by introducing new tools to address conflicts of interest of public office holders and stricter criminal sanctions for corruption. Among the new tools are the registers to enhance transparency in political party finance and a ban for public officials, including local government representatives, to take up positions in state-owned enterprises. However, the ban on secondary activities does not extend to current deputies and senators or municipality-owned enterprises. Apart from the prohibition to hold public functions following corruption convictions, the reform introduces criminal sanctions for corruption ranging from one to 15 years, including a life sentence for repeat corruption offences, which raises questions concerning its proportionality. The fight against corruption, including in key areas of public administration, has been included as a priority for the police for 2021-2023. Priority areas include the enhancement of police operations in combating key types of crime, including corruption crimes. Concerns regarding the effectiveness in fighting foreign bribery still need to be addressed. As regards foreign bribery, the OECD had called on Poland to remove the Criminal Code provision that allows the perpetrators of bribery to avoid legal sanctions if they notify the responsible authorities about the crime and disclose all circumstances before the authorities learn about it, as it leads to impunity. Deficiencies have also been highlighted with regard to the effective enforcement to tackle foreign bribery since a private company can only be held criminally liable for foreign bribery after the individual who committed the bribe was convicted in final instance. The level of sanctions in this regard with too low fines for companies are not considered effective, proportionate or dissuasive. A draft law is being discussed in the Parliament that would amend provisions defining passive and active bribery, including foreign bribery. Obstacles to the effective repression of corruption, including high-level corruption, remain. Corruption investigations and prosecutions tend to be lengthy, partly due to the need for additional human and technical resources to the prosecution service. The level of specialisation and digitalisation of the services involved is not always sufficient to carry out their tasks to combat corruption effectively. Regarding high-level corruption cases, concerns remain about institutionalised corruption and a risk of impunity caused by a disparity in the treatment of corruption cases for political purposes, which potentially breaches the principle of equality before the law. These concerns are based on the increased influence of the executive branch of power over the judiciary, the prosecution and police with the entire chain of criminal proceedings being exposed to risks of political interference, undermining the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts in respect of persons in top executive functions. Concerns regarding the broad scope of immunities of persons exercising top executive functions who are also members of Parliament have not been addressed, preventing criminal accountability for corruption crimes regardless of whether they are related to the members’ official duties. The fact that the Minister of Justice continues to serve also as Prosecutor-General adds to the concerns over the independence of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau from the executive power . The increased supervisory powers of the Prosecutor-General, who can issue instructions in individual cases, including not to prosecute, and take over corruption cases of his subordinate prosecutors, provides avenues to influence anti-corruption prosecutions politically, which has also been the case on several occasions . In this context, concerns exist about the risks of politically motivated investigations and wiretapping of public officials, prosecutors and defence lawyers by the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau’s Pegasus surveillance spyware. The Polish Government has analysed the effectiveness of its lobbying rules but the findings have not been made public. A legislative amendment to the current lobbying regulation dating back to 2005 was one of the objectives set out in the Government’s Anti-Corruption Programme for 2018-2020. Yet, no legislative amendments have been proposed. The applicable law defines lobbying, establishes a public register as well as determines obligations and sanctions for unregistered lobbyists. In this context, Poland does not have lobbying rules obliging persons exercising top executive functions to transparently disclose their contacts with interest representatives. In practice, however, there are three lobby registers in place, one for the Government (based on the lobbying regulation), one for the lower chamber of Parliament (Sejm), and one covering its higher chamber (Senate). For lobbying activities towards the government, the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration is the supervisory body. For members of Parliament, the two chambers have supervisory tasks over lobbying activities. Concerns persist as to the effectiveness of these registers with low and declining registration rates. The oversight is not systematic and no information is available on whether sanctions have been applied to unregistered lobbyists. Post-employment (‘revolving doors’) rules exist for top-level officials but do not extend to members of Parliament and are limited to entities that the respective public official dealt with professionally or issued specific decisions.

There are various systems for asset declarations and controls but the initiative to standardise them is not being pursued. The creation of a uniform system for the submission and analysis of asset declarations for public officials was one of the measures of the Government Anti-Corruption Programme 2018-2020. The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau prepared a draft regulation, however, it has not been made public. The technical work towards a more standardised, electronic system was suspended until appropriate legislative steps are taken. Until then, a centralised submission and monitoring system is lacking, while the level of digitalisation of politicians’ asset declaration continues to be low. Most declarations are still filled out by hand, with various declaration forms being in use. The scope of data to be disclosed is similar but not streamlined for every public official required to submit declarations. Whistleblowers can report corruption in an official online reporting system, while dedicated legislation for whistleblowers’ protection is in preparation. The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau hosts a helpline system for anonymous disclosures by citizens. There is no analytical data available on the use and effectiveness of this hotline in practice. A new draft law on whistleblower protection is in preparation to transpose the relevant EU directive. The legislative process is still at governmental level and no timeline for adoption in available. Until amendments are introduced to the current whistleblower framework, whistleblowers’ protection is provided for in different legal provisions. New measures aim at increasing transparency in political party finance rules, while concerns have arisen regarding election campaigns. The law on the Political Parties was revised by criminal code amendments introducing the obligation for political parties to maintain up-to-date a register of donations and a register of contracts of political parties. Overall, stakeholders assess the registers’ potential to increase transparency in political party finances as a step in the right direction. Concerns have, however, been raised by the Personal Data Protection Office that the disclosure of the donors’ identity in the register of donations would allow the identification of the donors’ political affiliation. Furthermore, the exclusion from the register of individual donations to the Electoral Fund have raised questions as to the new rules’ impact in practice, as the Electoral Fund is the only source of funds used to finance election campaigns. The revised law on the Political Parties entered into force on 1 July 2022. Furthermore, in September 2021, a court ruled that the prosecutor’s office is to resume the investigations into the so-called envelope elections of May 2020 that concern allegations of misuse of public funds. ‘Impunity clauses’ in public procurement rules, first introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, continue to raise concern of corruption risks. Several temporary exemptions from criminal and disciplinary responsibility for the abuse of power by public officials (‘impunity clauses’) who manage public funds or purchase equipment, services, and other resources were introduced during the pandemic. Following the failure to adopt extensions of those temporary exemptions beyond the previously introduced limited scope of time, a case was brought before the Constitutional Tribunal and is still pending to examine whether the crime of abuse of power by public officials, as laid down in the Criminal Code, is constitutional in such circumstances. A similar impunity clause was also proposed in the recent draft law on aid for Ukrainian refugees, excluding criminal liability during war times, which was, however, discarded due to increased public and media attention. Such exemptions from criminal responsibility introduce corruption risks and may foster the abuse of political and administrative power due to the lack of deterrence and perception of impunity. III.Media Freedom and Media Pluralism According to the Constitution, the public interest regarding radio broadcasting and television is safeguarded by the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT) whose members are appointed by the Sejm, the Senate and the President of the Republic. Freedom of the press and other means of social communication are constitutionally protected. The Law on Broadcasting and the Press Law provide, respectively, a legal framework for the media regulator - the KRRiT and safeguards for journalistic independence. The Law on Broadcasting was amended to transpose the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive and included further provisions relavant for the transaprency of media ownership. Changes in the legal framework contributed to the strengthening of the statutory safeguards for the independence of the media regulator. Legislation transposing the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) was adopted on 11 August 2021, through an amendment of the Broadcasting Act. The revision included provisions pertinent to the independence of the media regulator, in particular by making the procedure for dismissing its members more rigid. To this end, it introduced an obligation to require the President of the Republic to confirm the expiry of the KRRiT members’ term of office, following a negative vote by the two Chambers of Parliament. Both the resolutions, as well as any confirmation by the President, need to be reasoned. Despite the legal safeguards being in place, as noted by different stakeholders, challenges relate to close political ties of some members of the KRRiT to the governing party, which may undermine its independence. This is also reflected by the 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, which states that the existing appointment procedures do not ensure effective limitation of political influence. Also, the list of responsibilities of the media regulator has been widened to align it with the revised AVMSD, for instance when it comes to actions related to video sharing platforms. Recent developments concerning operating licensing show existing risks to media pluralism. As noted in last year’s Rule of Law Report, there are concerns related to reducing media pluralism through modification of requirements for obtaining a licence. Proposed legislative amendments, allowing not to grant broadcasting concessions to operators directly or indirectly controlled by persons registered outside the EEA, were subject to a Presidential veto and, therefore, did not become part of the Polish legal order. Concerns were also raised regarding the lack of transparency of the legislative process of these amendments. Controversies around the extension of the broadcasting licences for both TVN24 and TVN7 channels show risks in relation to the operation of independent media actors. In the case of TVN24, KRRiT decided to extend its licence but only after 18 months and the TVN7 licence was extended after more than 12 months from the extension request being made. While both licences were ultimately extended for the period of 10 years, the administrative proceedings by the KRRiT were considered as particularly long, although the Broadcasting Law provides for a simplified examination procedure in the case of a request for license renewal. Moreover, when extending the TVN24 license, KRRiT issued a resolution mirroring the rationale of the above-mentioned problematic legislative proposal. Further obligations concerning media ownership transparency have been adopted. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor reports medium risk in relation to the media ownership transparency, noting that the public has less readily-available access to the relevant ownership or financial data than authorities. The 2021 amendment of the Broadcasting Law, which transposes the revised AVMSD, expanded the scope of the transparency obligations for media service providers. The new rules include an obligation to provide information on beneficial owners and include it in the National Judicial Register and the Central Register of Beneficial Owners. There are concerns regarding the independence of Polish public service media. Following the 2016 reform, the competences related to public service media are distributed between the National Media Council (RMN) and National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT). Under the current legal framework, the RMN is competent for the appointment and removal of the management and supervisory boards of the Polish Television (TVP), the Polish Radio and the Polish Press Agency. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor reports high risks in relation to independence of public service media governance and funding, referring to the support of the public service media management towards growing political partisanship as well as points the issues related to the justification and opaqueness of the public service media funding. Concerning the media regulator, KRRiT has powers related to the charters of duties of public service media and their yearly programming as well as financial plans, and to the assessment of yearly reports regarding performance of their public service remit. However, as reported by stakeholders and the Media Pluralism Monitor, KRRiT appears to be unwilling to react against imbalanced reporting on public services media, which stands out in comparison to cases of harsh reactions towards reporting disseminated by independent private media. As pointed out by a stakeholder, the existing division of competences between KRRiT and RMN limits KRRiT’s capacity to carry out its constitutional mission of safeguarding the freedom of speech and the right to information and public interest in radio and television broadcasting. No legislative developments concerning the distribution of state advertisements were reported in 2021, however as confirmed by the 2022 Media Pluralism report challenges persist over its fair and transparent distribution. These concern, in particular, channeling state advertising to government-sympathetic media outlets. Introduction of the state of emergency negatively affected the right of access to information, in particular by humanitarian organisations and journalists. Following the introduction on 2 September 2021 of a state of emergency in the area adjacent to the Polish-Belarussian border, the area was excluded from any media scrutiny, and no provision was made for a system of accreditation allowing access for journalists. There were reports of journalists being apprehended, and in several instances journalists were informed by the police that they would face criminal charges for reporting from the emergency zone, and some were fined for their activities. The Supreme Court acquitted journalists found in breach of these rules, considering the prohibition introduced by the Government as disproportionate and unconstitutional. Another law concerning the situation at the Belarussian border, empowered the border guard to grant the access to the zone to selected media, whilst retaining full control over the movement of journalists in that zone. Overall, these restrictions were considered to be a risk to press freedom by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the Ombudsperson as well as by the representatives of media and journalists associations who issued an open statement to that end. The professional environment for journalists continues to deteriorate. The Law on Broadcasting and the Press Law provides for safeguards of journalistic independence. Self-regulatory mechanisms are not developed within the journalistic community, which, as noted by stakeholders, does not improve the working environment for journalists. While journalists remain exposed to cases of physical and verbal abuse, including when covering public protests, the 2022 World Press Freedom Index reports that the level of violence has decreased. However, it considers that the protection of journalists and their rights during protests remains insufficient. The news media community continues to be exposed to threats stemming from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Since July 2021, 24 alerts have been published on the Mapping Media Freedom platform and 14 of them concerned legal incidents related to journalists. In this period, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists published 17 alerts, 14 of them related to legal incidents and five to harassment and psychological abuse. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor assesses the risks related to the journalistic profession, standards and protection at medium level. In addition, a recent legislative draft of the Ministry of Justice risks affecting the freedom of speech on the Internet, giving rise to editors’ concerns. The law would inter alia establish a public authority which would act as an appeal body for content moderation decisions taken by online platforms. IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Poland is a representative democratic republic with a directly elected President, a bicameral Parliament (Sejm and Senate) and a Constitutional Tribunal in charge of constitutional review of laws. The Sejm has the final decision-making power when adopting laws. The President of the Republic, the Senate, a group of 15 deputies, the Council of Ministers and a group of at least 100 000 citizens have the right to propose new legislation. The independent Ombudsperson is tasked with safeguarding the freedoms and rights of persons and citizens specified in the Constitution and other normative acts. The Supreme Audit Office is the chief organ of state audit, subordinate to the Sejm, acting in accordance with the principles of collegiality. Significant reforms continue to be frequently adopted through the by-passing of procedures that require adequate consultations. Practice shows that the governmental legislative track, which entails the obligation of public consultations, is often not used, and laws are regularly tabled by groups of Members of Parliament. Such an approach results in a high share of laws not being subject to adequate public consultation. This practice practically prevents stakeholders from submitting their opinions on the draft legislation, and often postpone taking a position until the law has been transmitted to the Senate. Together, this increasingly affects the quality of the legislation. This issue was raised in the context of the 2019 and 2020 Country Specific Recommendations under the European Semester. As part of its RRP, Poland made a commitment to adopt an amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm, the Senate and the Council of Ministers, which shall introduce a mandatory impact assessment and public consultation for draft laws proposed by deputies and senators and limit the use of fast-track procedures to well-specified and exceptional cases, with a view to a better and more stable regulatory framework. In this context, it is noted that the perceived level of effectiveness of investment protection by the law and courts is very low among companies. On 1 January 2022, Poland had 38 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pending implementation. At that time, Poland’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years that remained pending was at 48% and the average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 5 years and 10 months. The oldest leading judgment, pending implementation for 17 years, concerns the excessive length of proceedings before administrative bodies and courts and absence of an effective remedy. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending implementation increased to 45. The new Ombudsperson continues to play a key role as a rule of law safeguard, while constrained by limited resources. On 8 and 21 July 2021 respectively, the Sejm appointed and the Senate approved the appointment of a new Ombudsperson with bi-partisan support. As in previous years since 2016, the public authorities have not increased the budget allocated to the Ombudsperson’s office for the year 2022, thereby limiting its capacity to exercise its role, even though the Office is intensely involved in the humanitarian situation at the Polish-Belarussian border and provides assistance to refugees from Ukraine. The Ombudsperson’s cooperation with state authorities remains difficult, including due to the authorities’ refusal to react to the Ombudsperson’s statements or to take into account his comments and recommendations as regards legislative drafts. The Ombudsperson retains ‘A’ status, awarded in November 2017 by the UN Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). Despite allegations related to the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware surveillance software, no investigation was launched by the prosecution service. On 21 December 2021, media reported that a barrister had been targeted by Pegasus software. Using such software against barristers may compromise the lawyer’s secrecy. Prosecution services declined to conduct an investigation into these matters. Stakeholders expressed serious concerns in that respect, pointing at the likelihood that more lawyers were targeted in this specific way. Amongst the alleged targets there was reportedly also a prosecutor and two members of opposition parties and a business representative.Reportedly, the Pegasus surveillance software was purchased for the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, which raises further concerns regarding the use of corruption investigations for political purposes. The Minister of National Security and Defence Matters confirmed that the Pegasus software had been acquired. Representatives of the governing coalition submitted that no surveillance method can be imposed without prior consent of the court. The Ombudsperson submitted that judicial control in that respect is insufficient and courts do not know what type of surveillance would eventually be imposed by the state bodies. The Senate set up an extraordinary committee to conduct an inquiry into these developments.

Government action on the Polish-Belarussian border under a state of emergency sparked concerns of stakeholders as to constitutionality and restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms. On 31 August 2021, in view of the crisis at the Polish-Belarussian border, the Government requested the President of the Republic to introduce a state of emergency on the territory of two Polish regions adjacent to the Belarussian border, limiting a number of constitutional rights and freedoms (until 1 December 2021). Without questioning as such the state of emergency, the Ombudsperson raised concerns related to the disproportionate limitation of constitutional freedoms in that respect. Meanwhile, as the state of emergency could not be constitutionally prolonged past 1 December 2021, the Sejm adopted on 17 November 2021 a law empowering the Minister of Interior to impose a prohibition incumbent on any person to stay or move within the border-adjacent area. According to the Ombudsperson, another law concerning the situation at the Belarussian border raises severe constitutionality concerns notably related to the suspension of constitutional rights and freedoms. The Supreme Audit Office continues its operation under adverse conditions. As of 2021, the Marshal of the Sejm has been refusing to appoint Members of the SAO College, thus hampering the effective functioning of the Office. The Prosecutor-General has made a request to deprive the President of the SAO of his immunity, which is currently under examination of the Sejm. Representatives of the SAO raised concerns about the lack of effective follow-up by the prosecution services to its requests made in the aftermath of audits. Furthermore, the chief office-holders in Poland refuse to cooperate with the SAO in the context of audit reports. Since 2021, the Supreme Audit Office (‘SAO’) has produced a number of audit reports raising concerns regarding possible instances of public funds’ embezzlement and mismanagement by public authorities, notably by the Ministry of Justice and bodies responsible for implementing the state budget. While the SAO raised concerns about developments adversely affecting its own independence at the forum of the European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions, no steps have so far been taken by the state authorities to rectify the situation. Civil society plays a crucial role in providing help to refugees from Ukraine, following the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. NGOs have been very active in providing psychological and medical support, interpretation services, and in supplying food and clothes to over three million refugees. In addition, the self-government of legal professions has been active in providing refugees with legal assistance free of charge. The Government has facilitated the process of financial donations to selected NGOs in this context and assigned about EUR 10 million to the NGOs assisting with the situation on the ground. A group of 40 NGOs signed an open statement to the European Commission and the Council voicing concerns as regards the Polish Government’s initiatives to disburse additional EU funds aimed at helping the refugee crisis and the fact that funds do not reach local authorities and civil society. The civic space has further deteriorated. Poland continues to have a broad and vibrant civil society, consisting of more than 120 000 different NGOs. However, in view of the lack of action to address a continued deterioration in civic freedoms, assessments now characterise Poland’s civic space as ‘obstructed’. LGBTIQ people and relevant NGOs continue being targeted by draft legislative initiatives. Furthermore, no measures have been undertaken to address the concerns raised by NGOs as regards their access to public funding. A number of the so-called ‘LGBTIQ-ideology free’ zones have been annulled by courts, while three regional and several local governments decided to repeal these declarations on their own. On 30 March 2022, a draft law was proposed aiming at ensuring ‘transparency of non-governmental organisations’, giving rise to concerns of stakeholders; the draft law would create a national registry of NGOs “financed from abroad” (with an exception for NGOs receiving EU funds), which would also in specific circumstances be under an obligation to disclose the list of donors and indicate the origin of their funding on promotional materials. Stakeholders have also expressed concerns on a draft law amending the regime governing the offence of religious beliefs. Moreover, a law was introduced to the Sejm seeking to substantially increase the control over schools’ functioning by central government’s representatives who would be in position to notably decide on admitting or refusing access of individual NGOs to extracurricular activities of schools. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation_en . Amnesty International (2021) Pegasus Project: Massive data leak reveals Israeli NSO Group’s spyware used to target activists, journalists, and political leaders globally https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/07/the-pegasus-project/ . Amnesty International (2022), Poland: Use of Pegasus spyware to hack politicians highlights threat to civil society https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/01/poland-use-of-pegasus-spyware-to-hack-politicians-highlights-threat-to-civil-society/#:~:text=Confirming%20that%20Amnesty%20International%20has%20independently%20confirmed%20that,said%3A%20%E2%80%9CThese%20findings%20are%20shocking%20but%20not%20surprising . Amnesty International, Forum Obywatelskiego Prawa i Spolłeczeństwa, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Batory Foundation, Ombudsperson, Bar Association (2022), Contribution for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Associated Press (2021), ‘AP Exclusive: Polish opposition duo hacked with NSO spyware’ https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-poland-hacking-warsaw-8b52e16d1af60f9c324cf9f5099b687e . Association of Judges ‘Themis’ (2022), Report of 25 January 2022 - Challenging the principles of primacy and direct applicability of EU law by the Polish authorities, 6 months after the CJEU’s rulings of July 2021 http://themis-sedziowie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Challenging-the-principles-of-primacy-and-direct-applicability_extended_wer.pdf . Association of Prosecutors ‘Lex Super Omnia’ (2021), Report of 27 June 2021 – NEW LSO REPORT: "THE STICK METHOD. A ‘good change’ system of harassment of independent prosecutors" (NOWY RAPORT LSO: „METODA KIJA. Dobrozmianowy system nękania niezależnych prokuratorów”) https://lexso.org.pl/2021/06/27/nowy-raport-metoda-kija-dobrozmianowy-system-nekania-niezaleznych-prokuratorow/ . Batory Foundation (2019), ‘Finances of Polish parties’ (‘Finanse polskich partii’) https://www.batory.org.pl/publikacja/finanse-polskich-partii/ . Batory Foundation (2021), The politicization of the National Polish Broadcasting Council https://www.batory.org.pl/en/2021/07/29/the-politicisation-of-the-national-polish-broadcasting-council/ . Batory Foundation (2022), Contribution from the Batory Foundation for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Border Control Guard (2021), Press release of 1 December 2021 https://strazgraniczna.pl/pl/dla-mediow/zasady-obecnosci-mediow/9596,Zasady-obecnosci-mediow-w-pasie-przygranicznym-z-Bialorusia.html . Business Insider (2022), Polska koncesja TVN24 przedłużona. KRRiT przyjęła uchwałę, która ma cel taki jak lex TVN https://businessinsider.com.pl/biznes/media/polska-koncesja-tvn24-przedluzona-krrit-przyjela-dodatkowa-uchwale/6qgc37d . Campaign Against Homophobia (2022), Poland is an EU homophobe – we know the results of the ILGA-Europe ranking https://kph.org.pl/ilgaeurope2022/ . Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022 – country report on Poland. Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Poland https://monitor.civicus.org/country/poland/ .

CIVICUS (2022), Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Commissioner for Human Rights (2022), Contribution from the Commissioner for Human Rights for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Committee for the Defence of Justice (KOS) (2021), Report of 18 November 2021 https://komitetobronysprawiedliwosci.pl/raport-kos-2021/ . Committee for the Defence of Justice (KOS) (2022), Petition of 13 March 2022 signed by a number of legal professions’ organisations and largest associations of judges and prosecutors https://www.iustitia.pl/images/1/petycja_PL.pdf#xd_co_f=NzQyNTdjYjYtNjUzZC00YjUwLWE3MGUtMjZjMjg3MmY2ZjQ1~ . Constitutional Monitor (2022), Written statement of 1 February 2022 https://monitorkonstytucyjny.eu/archiwa/20910 . Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 13 December 2016, K 13/16. Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Poland https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287 . Council of Europe, Secretary General, Press communique of 7 December 2021 – Secretary General asks Poland how it intends to ensure effective implementation of ECHR https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/secretary-general-asks-poland-how-it-intends-to-ensure-effective-implementation-of-echr . Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2017), Poland – Opinion of the Venice Commission on the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office as amended (CDL-AD(2017)028). Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 5 November 2018, Commission v Poland, C-192/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:924. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland, C‑619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 9 July 2020, VQ v Land Hessen, C-272/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:535. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 2 March 2021, A.B., C‑824/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:153. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland, C-791/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:596. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 6 October 2021, W.Ż., C-487/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:798. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 16 November 2021, Criminal proceedings against WB and Others, Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:931. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 22 February 2022, PPU, Joined Cases C‑562/21 and C‑563/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:100. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 22 March 2022, M.F., C‑508/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:201. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 29 March 2022, BN and Others v Getin Noble Bank S.A., C-132/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:235.

Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. Dziennik.pl (2022), „Lex Czarnek 2.0”. The Minister of Education reveals when the new law will come into force ("Lex Czarnek 2.0". Minister edukacji zdradza, kiedy ustawa zacznie obowiązywać) https://edukacja.dziennik.pl/aktualnosci/artykuly/8435117,lex-czarnek-20-minister-edukacji-przemyslaw-czarnek.html . European Commission (20 December 2017), Press release - Rule of Law: European Commission acts to defend judicial independence in Poland https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_17_5367 . European Commission (2020), Council Recommendation on the 2020 National Reform Programme of Poland and delivering a Council opinion on the 2020 Convergence Programme of Poland (COM(2020) 521 final). European Commission (2020), Country Report Poland (SWD(2020) 520 final). European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Poland. European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Poland. European Commission (7 September 2021), Press release - Independence of Polish judges: Commission asks European Court of Justice for financial penalties against Poland on the activity of the Disciplinary Chamber https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4587 . European Commission (22 December 2021), Press release - Rule of Law: Commission launches infringement procedure against Poland for violations of EU law by its Constitutional Tribunal https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_7070 . European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 1 February 2005, Beller v. Poland, 51837/99. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 10 October 2005, Majewski v. Poland, 52690/99. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 16 January 2007, ma v. Poland, 7870/04. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 7 July 2015, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 20 June 2017, Załuska, Rogalska and Others v. Poland, 53491/10. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 22 July 2021, Reczkowicz v. Poland, 43447/19. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 8 November 2021, Dolińska - Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, 49868/19.

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 15 March 2022, Grzęda v. Poland, 43572/18. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 3 February 2022, Advance Pharma Sp. Z O.O v. Poland, 1469/20. European Court of Human Rights (3 February 2022), Systemic dysfunction in judicial appointments procedure in Poland, ECHR 039 (2021). European Court of Human Rights (14 April 2022), Press release – Interim measures in another case of Polish Supreme Court judge’s immunity, ECHR 131 (2022). European Federation of Journalists (2022), Contribution from the European Federation of Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2021), Press communique of 28 October 2021 - ENCJ votes to expel Polish Council for the Judiciary (KRS) https://www.encj.eu/node/605 . European Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) (2022), Contribution from the European Network on National Human Rights Institutions for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Gazeta Prawna (2021), Lex TVN. Can we really afford further pricey violations of the law? (Lex TVN. Czy naprawdę stać nas na kolejne kosztowne naruszenia prawa?) https://serwisy.gazetaprawna.pl/media/artykuly/8219976,lex-tvn-przedluzenie-koncesji-krrit-odpowiedzialnosc.html . Gazeta Wyborcza (2022), Prosecutors in Poland are defenseless in the face of repression by the management (Prokuratorzy w Polsce są bezbronni w obliczu represji kierownictwa) https://wyborcza.pl/7,75398,28079182,prokuratorzy-w-polsce-sa-bezbronni-w-obliczu-represji-kierownictwa.html#S.tylko_na_wyborcza.pl-K.C-B.3-L.1.maly:undefined . Głos Nauczycielski (2022), Lex Czarnek. The association referred to by curator Nowak dissociates itself from the so-called black list of organizations in schools (Lex Czarnek. Stowarzyszenie, na które powoływała się kurator Nowak odcina się od tzw. czarnej listy organizacji w szkołach) https://glos.pl/lex-czarnek-jedno-ze-stowarzyszen-na-ktore-powolywala-sie-kurator-nowak-oswiadczylo-ze-nie-przygotowywalo-zadnej-listy-organizacji . Grant Thornton (2022), Law barometer. Analysis of the stability of the legal environment in the Polish economy (Barometr prawa. Analiza stabilności otoczenia prawnego w polskiej gospodarce) https://barometrprawa.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Barometr-prawa-2022-RAPORT-Grant-Thornton-16-03-2022.pdf . GRECO (2008), Third Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Poland on incriminations. GRECO (2008), Third Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Poland on transparency of party funding. GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Poland on preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. GRECO (2021), Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report on Poland on preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights (2021), Brutal detention of journalists by soldiers near Michałów. The HFHR writes to the Minister of National Defence (Brutalne zatrzymanie dziennikarzy przez żołnierzy pod Michałowem. HFPC występuje z pismem do Ministra Obrony Narodowej) https://www.hfhr.pl/brutalne-zatrzymanie-dziennikarzy-przez-zolnierzy-pod-michalowem-hfpc-wystepuje-z-pismem-do-ministra-obrony-narodowej/ . Institute of Social Affairs (2022), Statement - The position of the Institute of Social Affairs on the announcement of a change in the provision on offending religious feelings (Stanowisko Instytutu Spraw Społecznych ws. zapowiedzi zmiany przepisu o obrazie uczuć religijnych) https://publicystyka.ngo.pl/stanowisko-instytutu-spraw-spolecznych-ws-zapowiedzi-zmiany-przepisu-o-obrazie-uczuc-religijnych . International Press Institute (2022), How ‘licence wars’ curb Poland’s free media (Gazeta Wyborcza) https://ipi.media/how-licence-wars-curb-polands-free-media-gazeta-wyborcza/ . Iustitia (2021), Statement of Iustitia Association of Polish judges of 2021 https://www.iustitia.pl/83-komunikaty-i-oswiadczenia/4336-iustitia-nie-bedziemy-startowac-w-wyborach-do-politycznej-krs-przez-ta-krs-placimy-miliony-euro-kary .

Iustitia (2021), Report of 17 August 2021 - Report on the activities of Polish authorities after the rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU of July 14, 2021 in case C-204/21 and of July 15, 2021 in case C-791/19 with attachments https://www.iustitia.pl/en/activity/informations/4214-report-on-the-activities-of-polish-authorities-after-the-rulings-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-eu-of-july-14-2021-in-case-c-204-21-and-of-july-15-2021-in-case-c-791-19-with-attachments . KRRiT (2022), Contribution from KRRiT for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Liberties (2022), Contribution from Liberties for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Marshal of the Senate of the Republic of Poland (2022), Statement of 16 February 2022 https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/komunikat.xsp?documentId=4B1C6374486C9C3DC12587EA005E78F0 . Marshal of the Senate of the Republic of Poland (2022), Contribution from the Marshal of the Senate of the Republic of Poland for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Ministry of Justice (2021), Press release of 16 September 2021 – Random case allocation system eliminated pathologies in the judiciary (System Losowego Przydziału Spraw wyeliminował patologie w sądownictwie) https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/system-losowego-przydzialu-spraw-wyeliminowal-patologie-w-sadownictwie . Ministry of Justice (2021), Press release of 12 October 2021 – Deputy Minister Sebastian Kaleta at the EU Forum on the Digitalisation of Justice (Wiceminister Sebastian Kaleta na unijnym forum cyfryzacji wymiaru sprawiedliwości) https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/wiceminister-sebastian-kaleta-na-unijnym-forum-cyfryzacji-wymiaru-sprawiedliwosci . Ministry of Justice (2021), Press release of 11 November 2021 - The Ministry of Justice opposes the application of double standards to Poland (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości sprzeciwia się stosowaniu podwójnych standardów wobec Polski) https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/ministerstwo-sprawiedliwosci-sprzeciwia-sie-stosowaniu-podwojnych-standardow-wobec-polski . National Bar Council (2022), Statement of 13 March 2022 https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/wybor-sedziowczlonkow-krs,513997.html . National Bar Council (2022), Press release of 14 April 2022 – New knowledge platform on refugee and migration law HELP of the Council of Europe (Nowa platforma wiedzy nt. prawa uchodźczego i migracyjnego HELP Rady Europy) https://www.adwokatura.pl/ogolnoprawne/nowa-platforma-wiedzy-nt-prawa-uchodzczego-i-migracyjnego-help-rady-europy/ . National Council of Legal Councillors (2022), Statement 15 March 2022 of the Committee of Human Rights https://kirp.pl/stanowisko-komisji-praw-czlowieka-przy-krajowej-radzie-radcow-prawnych-z-dnia-16-marca-2022-r-w-sprawie-wyroku-wielkiej-izby-europejskiego-trybunalu-praw-czlowieka-z-dnia-15-marca-2022-r-w-sprawie/ . National Council for the Judiciary (2022), Statement of 14 April 2022 (WO 41.4.2022). National Prosecutor’s Office (2021), Press release of 24 February 2021 https://pk.gov.pl/aktualnosci/aktualnosci-prokuratury-krajowej/prokuratura-krajowa-wystapila-na-droge-sadowa-w-zwiazku-ze-szkalujacymi-wypowiedziami-jednego-z-prokuratorow/ . National Prosecutor’s Office (2021), Press release of 23 July 2021 https://pk.gov.pl/aktualnosci/aktualnosci-prokuratury-krajowej/wniosek-o-uchylenie-immunitetu-prezesowi-nik/ . OECD (2015), Follow-Up to the Phase 3 Report & Recommendations – Poland https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/Poland-Phase-3-Written-Follow-Up-Report-ENG.pdf . OECD (2018), Poland must make urgent legislative reforms to combat foreign bribery https://www.oecd.org/corruption/poland-must-make-urgent-legislative-reforms-to-combat-foreign-bribery.htm#:~:text=Poland%20must%20make%20urgent%20legislative%20reforms%20to%20combat,after%20its%20Phase%203%20evaluation%20in%20June%202013 . OECD (2020), Poland should urgently implement reforms to boost fight against foreign bribery and preserve independence of prosecutors and judges https://www.oecd.org/poland/poland-should-urgently-implement-reforms-to-boost-fight-against-foreign-bribery-and-preserve-independence-of-prosecutors-and-judges.htm . OECD (2021), Poland’s lack of progress in implementing reforms to boost fight against foreign bribery remains a serious concern https://www.oecd.org/poland/poland-s-lack-of-progress-in-implementing-reforms-to-boost-fight-against-foreign-bribery-remains-a-serious-concern.htm . OKO Press (2020), Woś and Ziobro seek a register of NGOs financed from foreign funds. "It's an stigmatisation attempt" (Woś i Ziobro chcą rejestru NGO’s finansowanych ze środków z zagranicy. „To próba stygmatyzacji”) https://oko.press/wos-i-ziobro-chca-rejestru-ngos-finansowanych-ze-srodkow-z-zagranicy-to-proba-stygmatyzacji/ . OKO Press (2022), Lex Woś. Solidarna Polska seeks to "de-Putinize" non-governmental organizations with a law straight from Putin's Russia (Lex Woś. Solidarna Polska chce „deputinizować” organizacje pozarządowe ustawą rodem z Rosji Putina) https://oko.press/lex-wos-solidarna-polska-deputinizowac-organizacje-porzarzadowe-przy-pomocy-ustawy-od-putina/ .

Ombudsperson’s Office (2021), Press release of 15 April 2021 – To repeal defamation laws – to modify the provision on the criminality of offending religious feelings. Adam Bodnar's opinion for the Sejm (Uchylić przepisy o zniesławieniu – zmodyfikować przepis o karalności obrazy uczuć religijnych. Opinia Adama Bodnara dla Sejmu) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-zniesc-znieslawienie-zmodyfikowac-obraze-uczuc-religijnych . Ombudsperson’s Office (2021), Press release of 23 July 2021 – Marcin Wiącek took the oath in the Sejm as the new COMMISSIONER (Marcin Wiącek złożył ślubowanie w Sejmie jako nowy RPO) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-marcin-wiacek-zlozyl-slubowanie-w-sejmie . Ombudsperson’s Office (2021), Open letter of 6 September 2021 - State of emergency. The Ombudsperson has doubts about the restrictions on the work of journalists and access to public information (Stan wyjątkowy. RPO ma wątpliwości ws. ograniczeń pracy dziennikarzy oraz dostępu do informacji publicznej) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/stan-wyjatkowy-rpo-ma-watpliwosci-ws-ograniczen-pracy-dziennikarzy-oraz-dostepu-do . Ombudsperson’s Office (2022), Press release of 21 October 2021 – The law on the construction of a wall on the border is partially unconstitutional. Comments of the Ombudsperson for the Senate (Ustawa o budowie muru na granicy częściowo niekonstytucyjna. Uwagi RPO dla Senatu) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-granica-budowa-muru-senat . Ombudsperson’s Office (2022), Press release of 23 November 2021 - The State Border Act needs to be amended. Comments of the Ombudsperson for the Senate (Ustawa o granicy państwowej wymaga poprawek. Uwagi RPO dla Senatu) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-senat-ustawa-granica-panstwowa-uwagi . Ombudsperson’s Office (2022), Press release of 10 January 2022 - Further local government "anti-LGBT" resolutions repealed by the court (Kolejne samorządowe uchwały „anty-LGBT” uchylone przez sąd) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-wsa-krakow-uchwaly-anty-lgbt-uchylone . Ombudsperson’s Office (2022), Press release of 29 March 2022 – The court overturned another "anti-LGBT" resolution – of the Niebylec Commune Council (Sąd uchylił kolejną uchwałę „anty-LGBT” – Rady Gminy Niebylec) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-uchwala-anty-lgbt-niebylec-sad-uchylenie . Ombudsperson’s Office (2022), Opinion of 16 May 2022 - Ministerial draft amendments to the judiciary – significant doubts of the Ombudsman (Ministerialne projekty zmian w sądownictwie – istotne wątpliwości Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-ms-sadownictwo-usp-projekty-zmian-opinia . Onet (2021), Video recordings of the apprehension of journalists: “You’ll f***ing cease taking pictures (Nagrania z zatrzymania dziennikarzy. "Się, k***a, odechce fotografowania") https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/bialystok/kryzys-na-granicy-zatrzymanie-dziennikarzy-sie-ka-odechce-fotografowania/3gz20y9 . Onet (2022), ‘Citizen Lab: another Pegasus victim in Poland’ (‘Citizen Lab: kolejna ofiara Pegasusa w Polsce’) https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/citizen-lab-kolejna-ofiara-pegasusa-w-polsce/dbtzhjt . Open statement of 12 human rights and business organisations calling on withholding works on the law governing the freedom of speech in social media https://api.ngo.pl/media/get/172893 . Polish Government (2021), Press release of 31 August 2021 https://www.gov.pl/web/sluzby-specjalne/Stan-wyjatkowy-przy-granicy-z-bialorusia . Polish Government (2022), Press release of 28 February 2022 https://www.gov.pl/web/usa-en/standwithukraine--polish-ngos-and-how-to-help . Polish Government (2022), Press release of 11 March 2022 https://www.gov.pl/web/pozytek/10-mln-zl-dla-ngo-pomagajacych-uchodzcom-i-uproszczenie-procedur-zlecania-zadan . Polish Press Agency (2022), Solidarity Poland proposes to tighten the rules on offending religious feelings (Solidarna Polska proponuje zaostrzenie przepisow dotyczacych obrazy uczuc religijnych) https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C1157233%2Csolidarna-polska-proponuje-zaostrzenie-przepisow-dotyczacych-obrazy-uczuc . Prawo.pl (2022), Lex Czarnek 2.0 will go to the Sejm - now as a deputy's project (Lex Czarnek 2.0 trafi do Sejmu - teraz jako projekt poselski) https://www.prawo.pl/oswiata/weto-lex-czarnek,512667.html . Prawo.pl (2022), Organizations don't want a "free speech on the internet" law (Organizacje nie chcą ustawy o "wolności słowa w internecie") https://www.prawo.pl/prawo/sprzeciw-wobec-ustawy-o-wolnosci-slowa-w-internecie,513032.html . Prawo.pl (2022), Politicians want to vet NGOs in order to catch agents of foreign influence (Politycy chcą lustrować NGO, by wyłapać agentów wpływu z zagranicy) https://www.prawo.pl/samorzad/jawnosc-finansowania-organizacji-pozarzadowych-propozycje-zmian,514383.html . Prawo.pl (2022), Prosecutors complained about the work overload and... ended up on punitive secondments (Prokuratorzy poskarżyli się na przeciążenie pracą i... wylądowali na karnych delegacjach) https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/delegacje-w-szczecinskiej-prokuraturze-problemy-kadrowe,514437.html . President of the Disciplinary Chamber (2022), Ordinance No. 8/22 http://www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Wydarzenia.aspx?ItemSID=824-0dc69815-3ade-42fa-bbb8-549c3c6969c5&ListName=Wydarzenia .

President of the Republic (2021), Press release of 1 October 2021 https://www.prezydent.pl/aktualnosci/wydarzenia/prezydent-podpisal-rozporzadzenie-ws-przedluzenia-stanu-wyjatkowego,35808 . President of the Republic (2022), Press release of 2 March 2022 https://www.prezydent.pl/prawo/zawetowane/prezydent-wetuje-nowelizacje-prawa-oswiatowego,49737 . Reporters without Borders – Poland https://rsf.org/en/country/poland . Reporters without Borders (2021), ‘Polish soldiers cannot treat journalists as if it were a military dictatorship’ https://rsf.org/en/polish-soldiers-cannot-treat-journalists-if-it-were-military-dictatorship. Rzeczpospolita, Rząd nie zamierza płacić sędziom pomimo wyroku Trybunału w Strasburgu, https://www.rp.pl/sady-i-trybunaly/art36639341-rzad-nie-zamierza-placic-sedziom-pomimo-wyroku-trybunalu-w-strasburgu . Sejm (2022), A full transcript of the sitting of the Committee for the State Audit (Pełny Zapis zapis posiedzenia Komisji do spraw kontroli państwowej) https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/zapisy9.nsf/0/2D415ED8D87E86A4C1258805003209C3/%24File/0235709.pdf . Supreme Administrative Court (2021), Press release of 11 October 2021 - Communication on the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning appeals against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary on the presentation (failure to present) applications for appointment to the office of a judge of the Supreme Court – update (Komunikat w sprawie wyroków NSA dotyczących odwołań od uchwał KRS w przedmiocie przedstawienia (nieprzedstawienia) wniosków o powołanie do pełnienia urzędu na stanowisku sędziego Sądu Najwyższego - aktualizacja) https://www.nsa.gov.pl/komunikaty/komunikat-w-sprawie-wyrokow-nsa-dotyczacych-odwolan-od-uchwal-krs-w-przedmiocie-przedstawienia-nieprzedstawienia-wnioskow-o-powolanie-do-pelnienia-urzedu-na-stanowisku-sedziego-sadu-najwyzszego,news,4,802.php?p=1 . Supreme Audit Office (2021), 2020 State Budget Discharge Report https://www.nik.gov.pl/aktualnosci/prezes-nik-o-wykonaniu-budzetu-panstwa-w-2020.html . Supreme Audit Office (2021), Audit report No. P/20/037 of 30 September 2021 https://www.nik.gov.pl/aktualnosci/realizacja-zadan-funduszu-sprawiedliwosci.html . Supreme Audit Office (2021), Strong support for NIK President https://www.nik.gov.pl/en/news/strong-support-for-nik-president.html . Supreme Audit Office (2021), Letter of the President of the Supreme Audit Office https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,24448,vp,27194.pdf . Supreme Audit Office (2022), Contribution from the Supreme Audit Office for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Supreme Court (2021), Press communique of 2 September 2021 http://www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Wydarzenia.aspx?ItemSID=812-0dc69815-3ade-42fa-bbb8-549c3c6969c5&ListName=Wydarzenia&rok=2022 . Supreme Court (2021), Press communique of 27 September 2021 http://www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Wydarzenia.aspx?ItemSID=784-0dc69815-3ade-42fa-bbb8-549c3c6969c5&ListName=Wydarzenia&rok=2021 . Supreme Court (2022), Press communique of 10 February 2022 http://www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Wydarzenia.aspx?ItemSID=815-0dc69815-3ade-42fa-bbb8-549c3c6969c5&ListName=Wydarzenia&rok=2022 . Supreme Court (2022), Press communique of 29 March 2022 http://www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Wydarzenia.aspx?ItemSID=823-0dc69815-3ade-42fa-bbb8-549c3c6969c5&ListName=Wydarzenia . Supreme Court (2022), Press communique of 23 May 2022 http://www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Komunikaty_o_sprawach.aspx?ItemSID=502-b6b3e804-2752-4c7d-bcb4-7586782a1315&ListName=Komunikaty_o_sprawach . Supreme Court (2021), Statement of the First President of the Supreme Court of 22 October 2021 http://www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Wydarzenia.aspx?ItemSID=793-0dc69815-3ade-42fa-bbb8-549c3c6969c5&ListName=Wydarzenia&rok=2021 . Supreme Court (2022), Contribution from the Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. The Guardian (2022), More Polish opposition figures found to have been targeted by Pegasus spyware https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/more-polish-opposition-figures-found-to-have-been-targeted-by-pegasus-spyware .

Tok fm (2021), PiS has found a new way for NIK and Marian Banaś? Starring Elżbieta Witek (PiS znalazł nowy sposób na NIK i Mariana Banasia? W roli głównej Elżbieta Witek) https://www.tokfm.pl/Tokfm/7,103087,27605017,pis-znalazl-nowy-sposob-na-nik-i-mariana-banasia-w-roli-glownej.html . Tok fm (2022), NGOs write to the European Commission. It's about money to help refugees (Organizacje pozarządowe piszą do Komisji Europejskiej. Chodzi o pieniądze na pomoc uchodźcom) https://www.tokfm.pl/Tokfm/7,103085,28219945,organizacje-pozarzadowe-pisza-do-komisji-europejskiej-chodzi.html . Tok fm (2022), A judge from Lublin was supposed to receive EUR 15 000 from the state. The Government does not intend to pay. “We are getting closer to Russia”, (Lubelski sędzia miał otrzymać 15 tysięcy euro od państwa. Rząd płacić nie zamierza. "Zbliżamy się do Rosji”) https://www.tokfm.pl/Tokfm/7,182251,28650980,sprawa-sedziego-z-lublina-ktory-wygral-przed-etpcz-msz-juz.html . Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. Tygodnik Powszechny (2021), Journalists at the border. Media Statement (Dziennikarze na granicy. Oświadczenie mediów) https://www.tygodnikpowszechny.pl/dziennikarze-na-granicy-oswiadczenie-mediow-169036 . TVN24 (2021), Supreme Audit Office chief notifies EUROSAI about government pressure https://tvn24.pl/tvn24-news-in-english/polands-chief-auditor-complains-about-government-pressure-on-his-institution-5097595 . TVP info (2021), The judge of the Disciplinary Chamber notifies the prosecutor's office about four judges of the Supreme Court (Sędzia Izby Dyscyplinarnej zawiadamia prokuraturę ws. czterech sędziów SN) https://www.tvp.info/56151780/sedzia-izby-dyscyplinarnej-jan-majchrowski-zlozyl-zawiadomienie-o-mozliwosci-popelnienia-przestepstwa-przez-czworo-tzw-starych-sedziow-sadu-najwyzszego . TVP info (2022), Scandal at the top levels of the EU. The Polish prosecutor's office has opened an investigation (Afera na szczytach UE. Polska prokuratura wszczęła śledztwo) https://www.tvp.info/58132359/afera-korupcyjna-na-szczytach-ue-tsue-sledztwo-polskiej-prokuratury . UNODC (2015), Implementation Review Group, Executive Summary – Poland https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReviewGroup/ExecutiveSummaries/V1406175e.pdf . WP (2022), A bizarre list from Barbara Nowak. "This disqualifies her from holding any public office" (Kuriozalna lista od Barbary Nowak. "To ją dyskwalifikuje z pełnienia jakichkolwiek funkcji publicznych") https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kuriozalna-lista-barbary-nowak-to-ja-dyskwalifikuje-z-pelnienia-jakichkolwiek-funkcji-publicznych-6729897877064352a . Annex II: Country visit to Poland The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2022 with: ·Amnesty International ·Association of Judges ‘Iustitia’ and ‘Themis’ ·Association of Judges ‘Themis’ ·Association of Prosecutors ‘Lex Super Omnia’ ·Fundacja Batorego ·Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju ·Free Courts – Wolne Sądy ·Fundacja bona Notitia

·Helsinska Fundacja Praw Człowieka ·Instytut Prawa i Społeczeństwa ·Instytut Sobieskiego ·Izba Wydawców Prasy ·Klub Jagielloński ·National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council ·Logos ·Fundacja Mamy i Taty ·Ministry of Culture ·National Council for the Judiciary ·National Council of Legal Councillors ·Ombudsman’s Office ·Ordo Iuris ·Rada Mediów Narodowych ·Stowarzyszenie Polskie Telewizje Lokalne i Regionalne ·Stowarzyszenie Polskich Mediów ·Supreme Administrative Court ·Supreme Audit Office ·Supreme Bar Council ·Supreme Court

·Towarzystwo Dziennikarskie ·Towarzystwo Dziennikarzy Polskich ·Watchdog Polska * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Article 19 ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Free Press Unlimited ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA Europe ·International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) ·International Press Institute ·Open Society European Policy Institute ( OSEPI)