Artur Pietryka | In Principle

This is the first edition of a report devoted to extradition practice in Poland, in the years 2022–2024. For many months we collected and analysed statistics and decisions by the courts and prosecutors’ offices in extradition cases. Our aim was to form a picture of how this institution functions in practice. 

Following the outbreak of the full-scale war in 2022, Ukraine became the country submitting the most extradition requests to the Polish authorities, overtaking the previous leader, Russia. Now about 50 cases a year reach the regional prosecutors’ offices, where procedures for extradition to Ukraine are initiated pursuant to Interpol Diffusions or Red Notices. The noticeable increase in the number of such cases in the prosecutors’ offices has also led to increased activity in this area by Poland’s regional courts and courts of appeal.

The campaign 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence is underway. On this occasion, we speak to adwokat Dr Artur Pietryka of Wardynski & Partners’ criminal practice about the need to amend the Polish law on sexual assault.

In this episode Artur Pietryka discusses how a company should react if it is served with a demand from law enforcement to provide documents or information.

More and more requests are filed with Polish prosecutors and courts by other countries seeking extradition of wanted persons found in Poland. These persons often are not even aware that they are sought by law enforcement authorities in another country to face criminal charges there or to enforce existing criminal sanctions.

On 7 February 2022, the Polish Sejm adopted an amendment to the Criminal Code introducing a controversial proposal for ordering the forfeiture of vehicles driven by intoxicated traffic offenders. Ordered by the criminal court, the change of ownership from the driver to the State Treasury is intended to help the justice system effectively combat road hogs and drunk drivers. The amendment is currently being considered by the Senate, which can still make changes. But it can already be predicted that rulings on vehicle forfeitures will face difficulties.

Some 70–80 extradition requests are filed every year with the Polish authorities, to turn over persons to stand trial before a foreign court or serve a punishment abroad.

On 21 December 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in Stołkowski v Poland (application no. 58795/15) holding that Poland had violated the applicant’s property rights. The case involved the long impoundment of the applicant’s car as security in a criminal case pending against him, which resulted in decimation of the vehicle’s value. Relying on principles of property rights, the court decided when impoundment of a car may be disproportionate, despite the existing public interest and legal basis for application of such a measure.

In December 2020, the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in Papageorgiou v Greece (application No. 44101/13), holding that despite his prior acquittal, the imposition of civil liability on a driver for causing an accident under the influence of alcohol did not violate the presumption of innocence. The case provides an opportunity to discuss how the outcome of criminal proceedings impacts drunk drivers’ liability for damages.

A document handed over (or worse, merely shown) to a detainee upon detention may not be comprehensible. This is not only a Polish problem. In other EU countries as well, guidance given to detainees leaves a lot to be desired. Hence, the idea for lawyers and plain-language specialists to join forces to create new sample guidance for detainees.

Faced by the spreading SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, the Polish Parliament and President rushed through a Special Coronavirus Act. The act is intended to clarify and supplement regulations on prevention of the spread of infectious diseases in Poland. But by giving total primacy to protection of the public interest, the act ignores the issue of the rights and freedoms of persons subjected to various forms of compulsory treatment (hospitalisation, quarantine, and epidemiological supervision). Do individuals have any means of legal protection in this context?

Perpetrators of border offences aren’t all human traffickers or smugglers of goods. Increasingly they are citizens of third countries wishing to travel around the EU for study, work, or tourism. To facilitate obtaining a visa or an extension of their stay, they may use the services of intermediaries who don’t always operate lawfully. Visitors risk a lot this way. If the Border Guard finds that a passport or visa is falsified, the holder may not only be denied entry into an EU member state, but may also be convicted of a criminal offence and have their details entered in registers, hindering future travel in the Schengen zone. How can travellers defend themselves in this situation?