Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Limiting Fundamental Rights by Governmental Regulations. An Illiberal Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Rule of Law and the Challenges Posed by the Pandemic (WLC 2021)

Included in the following conference series:

  • 39 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter focuses on the limitation of fundamental rights by governmental regulations within the Polish illiberal constitutional framework. First, the illiberalisation of human rights is presented. Then, the constitutional framework of emergencies is described with reference to the non-application of this framework. Further, the legal response to fighting the pandemic is discussed, emphasising the unconstitutionality of limitations on rights and freedoms by government acts rather than by the parliament, along with the judicial reaction to unconstitutional measures. The chapter concludes that the constitutional system and human rights protection deteriorated but have not achieved the authoritarian end yet.

The research is supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, 2018/29/B/HS5/00232, ‘Illiberal constitutionalism in Poland and Hungary’. The chapter is based on the report prepared for the International Academy of Comparative Law on the subject "Governmental policies to fight pandemics. Defining the boundaries of legitimate limitations on fundamental freedoms", General Rapporteur (2022) Arianna Vedaschi.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This section is based on findings published in Drinóczi and Bień-Kacała (2022), pp. 124–135.

  2. 2.

    Lührmann and Lindberg (2019), pp. 1097–1099.

  3. 3.

    Sajó et al. (eds), (2022), pp. XXI–XXIV; Laruelle (2022), pp. 303–327.

  4. 4.

    Sadurski calls the illiberalization of human rights “redesign and recalibration”, Sadurski (2019), p. 151.

  5. 5.

    In Hungary, the third phase of illiberalization of human rights is identified—the emergence of a new theory of human rights in which the state is treated as a human rights holder, see Drinóczi and Bień-Kacała (2022), pp. 147–149.

  6. 6.

    Eg. the CT decisions of 24 November 2021 (K 6/21) and 10 March 2022 (K 7/21) adjudicating that Article 6 of the ECHR is unconstitutional. Bień-Kacała (2022a), pp. 170–172.

  7. 7.

    Polish Helsinki Foundation Report, Poland Threatening Human Rights Protection, www.liberties.eu/en/news/hfhr-report-poland-threatening-human-rights-protections/18206.

  8. 8.

    Kastelik-Smaza (2018), p. 112.

  9. 9.

    See eg, Kastelik-Smaza (2018), p. 112; Kustra-Rogaska and Hamulak (2019), p. 90.

  10. 10.

    The length of the proceedings has been the main, or second biggest, cause of concern in most of the more advanced Signatory States to the ECHR www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2018_ENG.pdf.

  11. 11.

    Eg., cases before the ECtHR concerning the UK and its regulatory responses to internal and external terrorism in the 1970–1980s and after 2000 may be recalled.

  12. 12.

    In the category of “global freedom”, Russia, Turkey and Singapore scored 20 (not free), 32 (not free) and 50 (partly free) out of 100 in 2019, respectively, while Hungary achieved 70 (the same as the previous year; partly free), and Poland 84 (free). https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores, https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary/freedom-world/2020.

  13. 13.

    Supervision of the execution of judgments and decision of the European Court of Human Rights, 81–81.

  14. 14.

    Violations by Article and by States 1959–2018.

  15. 15.

    When one considers the proportion of violations of Articles in relation to the overall number of violations.

  16. 16.

    Violations by Article and by States 1959–2018.

  17. 17.

    Poland scored 49 out of 60, while, Russia scored 15, Turkey 16, and Singapore 32. This includes the scores for Rule of Law performance as well. Disregarding the scores a state was given in the field of the Rule of Law, the results are as follows: 33, 38, 13, 13, and 25 out of 44, respectively.

  18. 18.

    Drinóczi and Bień-Kacała (2022), pp. 132–133.

  19. 19.

    The chapter takes the pre-Russian-war perspective and does not consider a migration wave from Ukraine caused by the war.

  20. 20.

    Tushnet (2017), pp. 1367–1384.

  21. 21.

    Drinóczi and Bień-Kacała (2022), p. 132. Frick (2022), pp. 861–875. The author equates illiberalism with communitarianism in regard to human rights.

  22. 22.

    Alviar Garcia and Frankenberg (2022), p. 168.

  23. 23.

    Gragl (2022), pp. 9–31.

  24. 24.

    Article 134.4 Polish Constitution 1997.

  25. 25.

    Article 175.2 Polish Constitution 1997.

  26. 26.

    Vedaschi (2022), pp. 119–120.

  27. 27.

    Drinóczi and Bień-Kacała (2020), p. 171–192.

  28. 28.

    See Arts 228–234 in Chapter XI of the Constitution: martial law, state of emergency, and state of national disaster.

  29. 29.

    See eg, Khakee (2009); Guide on Article 15 of the Convention—Derogation in time of emergency”, Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2016, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_15_ENG.pdf.

  30. 30.

    Ustawa z dnia 29 sierpnia 2002 r. o stanie wojennym oraz o kompetencjach Naczelnego Dowódcy Sił Zbrojnych i zasadach jego podległości konstytucyjnym organom Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej [Act of August 29, 2002 on martial law and on the competences of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and the rules of his subordination to the constitutional organs of the Republic of Poland] (Dz.U. 2017 r. poz. 1932.).

  31. 31.

    Ustawa z dnia 21 czerwca 2002 r. o stanie wyjątkowym [Act of June 21, 2002 on the state of emergency] (Dz.U. 2017 poz. 1928).

  32. 32.

    Ustawa z dnia 18 kwietnia 2002 r. o stanie klęski żywiołowej [Act of 18 April 2002 on the state of natural disaster] (Dz.U. 2017 poz. 1897).

  33. 33.

    Ustawa z dnia 22 listopada 2002 r. o wyrównywaniu strat majątkowych wynikających z ograniczenia w czasie stanu nadzwyczajnego wolności i praw człowieka i obywatela [Act on compensation for the damage to property resulting from the limitation during the state of emergency of freedom and human rights and of the citizen] (Dz.U. 2002 nr 233 poz. 1955).

  34. 34.

    Article 228.2 of Polish Constitution 1997.

  35. 35.

    Ustawa z dnia 2 marca 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach związanych z zapobieganiem, przeciwdziałaniem i zwalczaniem COVID-19, innych chorób zakaźnych oraz wywołanych nimi sytuacji kryzysowych [Act of 2 March 2020 on specific solutions related to the prevention and control of COVID-19, other infectious diseases and crisis situations] (Dz. U. z 2020, poz. 374 ze zm.).

  36. 36.

    Ustawa z dnia 5 grudnia 2008 r. o zapobieganiu oraz zwalczaniu zakażeń i chorób zakaźnych u ludzi [Act of 5 December 2008 on the prevention and control of infections and infectious human diseases] (Dz. U. 2008, Nr 234, poz. 1570 ze zm.).

  37. 37.

    Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 13 marca 2020 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia na obszarze Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej stanu zagrożenia epidemicznego [Regulation of the Minister of Health of 13 March 2020 on the notification of a state of epidemic threat to the territory of the Republic of Poland], Dz. U. z 2020, poz. 433.

  38. 38.

    Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 20 marca 2020 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia na obszarze Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej stanu epidemii [Regulation of the Minister of Health of 20 March 2020 on the notification of a state of epidemic to the territory of the Republic of Poland], Dz. U. z 2020, poz. 491. Further, the limitations were extended by the regulation of the Government: Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 31 marca 2020 r. w sprawie ustanowienia określonych ograniczeń, nakazów i zakazów w związku z wystąpieniem stanu epidemii [Council of Ministers Regulation of 31 March 2020 on the establishment of certain restrictions, orders and prohibitions in connection with the state of epidemic], Dz. U. z 2020, poz. 566.

  39. 39.

    Gragl (2022), pp. 9–31.

  40. 40.

    Pach in favour of a state of natural disaster: https://wyborcza.pl/7,75398,25822753,ekspert-rzad-musi-wprowadzic-stan-nadzwyczajny-i-placic-firmom.html. Dobrzeniecki against: https://www.rp.pl/Rzecz-o-prawie/303319986-Karol-Dobrzeniecki-Stan-nadzwyczajny-w-krzywym-zwierciadle.html. Further, it was opined that not introducing the state of natural disaster clearly breached the Constitution: Florczak-Wątor (2020), p. 5–11.

  41. 41.

    Lachmayer and Kettemann (2022), p. 330.

  42. 42.

    https://www.tvpparlament.pl/aktualnosci/sejm-przyjal-zmiany-W-regulaminie-sejmu-umozliwiaja-poslom-glosowania-zdalne/47291608.

  43. 43.

    Bień-Kacała (2021), p. 276–294.

  44. 44.

    Ustawa z dnia 16 kwietnia 2020 r. o szczególnych instrumentach wsparcia w związku z rozprzestrzenianiem się wirusa SARS-CoV-2 [Act of 16 April 2020 on specific support instruments in relation to the spread of SARS-CoV-2] (Dz. U. 2020 poz. 695).

  45. 45.

    The bill aimed at, amongst other things, limiting ritual slaughter to religious purposes or banning the breeding of animals for fur. The bill could have caused a limitation on economic freedom.

  46. 46.

    Citizens bills, both pro-choice and pro-life.

  47. 47.

    Limiting the freedom of the media.

  48. 48.

    Bień-Kacała and Młynarska-Sobaczewska (2021), pp. 52–54.

  49. 49.

    Dz. U. 2008 No. 234, item 1570.

  50. 50.

    Ustawa z dnia 2 marca 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach związanych z zapobieganiem, przeciwdziałaniem i zwalczaniem covid-19, innych chorób zakaźnych oraz wywołanych nimi sytuacji kryzysowych [Act of March 2, 2020on special solutions related to the prevention, counteraction and combatting of covid-19, other infectious diseases and the crisis situations caused by them] (Dz.U. 2020 poz. 374).

  51. 51.

    Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 9 października 2020 r. w sprawie ustanowienia określonych ograniczeń, nakazów i zakazów w związku z wystąpieniem stanu epidemii [Regulation of the Council of Ministers of October 9, 2020 on the establishment of certain restrictions, orders and bans in connection with an epidemic] (Dz. U. 2020 poz. 1758).

  52. 52.

    Rozporządzenie z dnia 15 kwietnia 2020 r. Rady Ministrów zmieniające rozporządzenie w sprawie ustanowienia określonych ograniczeń, nakazów i zakazów w związku z wystąpieniem stanu epidemii [Regulation of April 15, 2020 of the Council of Ministers amending the regulation on the establishment of certain restrictions, orders and bans in connection with the occurrence of an epidemic] (Dz.U. z 2020 r. poz. 673).

  53. 53.

    Prawa człowieka w dobie pandemii, Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka, https://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Prawa-czlowieka-w-dobie-pandemii.pdf, p. 14.

  54. 54.

    Florczak-Wątor (2020), p. 14.

  55. 55.

    Garlicki (2003), pp. 25–26.

  56. 56.

    Bień-Kacała and Młynarska-Sobaczewska (2021), pp. 140–141.

  57. 57.

    Garlicki (2003), pp. 19–21.

  58. 58.

    Uziębło (2021), p. 5–28.

  59. 59.

    Sadowski (2021), p. 422–425.

  60. 60.

    Prawa człowieka w dobie pandemii, Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka, https://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Prawa-czlowieka-w-dobie-pandemii.pdf, pp. 18–21.

  61. 61.

    There are several other cases pending before the CT. The cases relate to diverse constitutional issues, among others—the shortcomings of the legislative process on COVID-19 related statutes due to the harsh procedure in the Sejm (Case K 22/20) or the special competences of Prime Minister in relation to the Council of Social Dialogue that violate the position of a social partner of dialogue (Case K 9/20).

  62. 62.

    Bień-Kacała (2022b).

  63. 63.

    The SC judgments: 1 July 2021 (IV KK 238/21); 16 March 2021 (II KK 64/21); 11 June 2021 (II CC 202/21).

  64. 64.

    The judgment of 18 November 2021 (II GSK 1282/21).

  65. 65.

    The judgment of 23 September 2021 (II GSK 876/21).

  66. 66.

    The judgment of 8 September 2021 r. (II GSK 427/21, II GSK 781/21, II GSK 1010/21, II GSK 602/21).

  67. 67.

    The judgment of 23 September 2021 r. (II GSK 844/21, II GSK 939/21).

  68. 68.

    Pecyna (2020), p. 23–36.

References

  • Alviar Garcia H, Frankenberg G (2022) Authoritarian structures and trends in consolidated democracies. In Sajó A, Uitz R and Holmes S (eds) Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism, Routledge, p 168

    Google Scholar 

  • Bień-Kacała A (2022a) How to unfriend the EU in Poland? The rise and fall of EU-friendly interpretation of the 1997 constitution. DPCE 1:170–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Bień-Kacała A (2022b) The illiberal constitutional court in Poland. The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal on abortion (K 1/20), Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Bień-Kacała A (2021) Legislation in Illiberal Poland. Theory Practice of Legislation 9(3):276–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bień-Kacała A, Młynarska-Sobaczewska A (2021) Poland, international encyclopaedia of laws, Alphen aan den Rijn, NL, Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law International, pp 52–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Drinóczi T, Bień-Kacała A (2022) Illiberal constitutionalism in Poland and Hungary. The Deterioration of Democracy, Misuse of Human Rights and Abuse of the Rule of Law, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Drinóczi T, Bień-Kacała A (2020) COVID-19 in Hungary and Poland: extraordinary situation and illiberal constitutionalism. Theory Practice Legislation 1–2:171–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florczak-Wątor M (2020) Niekonstytucyjność ograniczeń praw i wolności jednostki wprowadzonych w związku z epidemią COVID-19 jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności odszkodowawczej państwa [Unconstitutional restrictions imposed on individual rights and freedoms in connection with the COVID-19 epidemic as a premise for State liability for damages]. Państwo i Prawo 12:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick M-L (2022) Illiberalism and Human rights. In: Uitz R, Holmes S (eds) Sajó A. Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism, Routledge, pp 861–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Garlicki L (2003) Artykuł 31. In Garlicki L (ed), Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz [Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Commentary], Warszawa 3, pp 25–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Gragl P (2022) Lawless extravagance: the primacy claim of politics and the state of exception in times of COVID-19. In Kettemann MC, Lachmayer K (eds) Pandemocracy in Europe Power, Parliaments and People in Times of COVID-19, Hart, pp 9–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Khakee A (2009) Securing democracy? a comparative analysis of emergency powers in Europe, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces 2009, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/99550/PP30_Anna_Khakee_Emergency_Powers.pdf

  • Kastelik-Smaza A (2018) The Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in Poland, Acta Universitatis Carolinae—Iuridica 4: 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kustra-Rogaska A, Hamulak O (2019) Keeping distance: chapters from Randomized (Non)application of the European court of human rights before the polish constitutional tribunal. Baltic J Europ Studies 4(9):90

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachmayer K, Kettemann MC (2022) Conclusions: Pandemocracy—Governing for the People, without the People? In Kettemann MC, Lachmayer K, (eds) Pandemocracy in Europe Power, Parliaments and People in Times of COVID-19, Hart, p 330

    Google Scholar 

  • Laruelle M (2022) Illiberalism. A conceptual introduction. East European Politics 38(2):303–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lührmann A, Lindberg S (2019) A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it? Democratization 26(7):1097–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecyna M (2020) Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza Skarbu Państwa za ograniczenia praw i wolnoścci w czasie epidemii COVID-19 [The State’s liability for damages for restrictions on rights and freedoms introduced in connection with the COVID-19 epidemic] Państwo i Prawo 12:23–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski P (2021) Wolność zgromadzeń w czasie pandemii. Doświadczenia izraelskie [Freedom of assembly during a pandemic. Israeli experiences] Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego 4:422–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadurski W (2019) Poland’s constitutional breakdown. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sajó A, Uitz R, Holmes S (2022) Routledge handbook of illiberalism. New York and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (2017) The possibility of illiberal constitutionalism. Fla L Rev 69:1367–1384

    Google Scholar 

  • Uziębło P (2021) Odpowiedzialność organów władzy państwowej i ich członków za niekonstytucyjne ograniczenia praw i wolności jednostki w czasie stanu zagrożenia epidemicznego i stanu epidemii [Responsibility of state authorities and their members for unconstitutional restrictions on the rights and freedoms of an individual in times of epidemic threat and epidemic] Przegląd Konstytucyjny 1: 5–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedaschi A (2022) The marginalisation of parliament in facing the coronavirus emergency: what about democracy in Italy? In Kettemann MC, Lachmayer K, Pandemocracy in Europe. Power, Parliaments and Peopl e in Times of COVID-19, Hart, pp 119–120

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland

    Agnieszka Bień-Kacała

Authors
  1. Agnieszka Bień-Kacała
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnieszka Bień-Kacała .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Rainer Arnold

  2. Cremades and Calvo-Sotelo Abogados, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Cremades

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bień-Kacała, A. (2023). Limiting Fundamental Rights by Governmental Regulations. An Illiberal Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland. In: Arnold, R., Cremades, J. (eds) Rule of Law and the Challenges Posed by the Pandemic. WLC 2021. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39804-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39804-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39803-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39804-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation