Dispute Over Immunity and Detention Rulings in the Romanowski Case
In a statement to the Polish Press Agency, Jerzy Stępień, a former president of the Constitutional Tribunal, argued that the prosecutor general did not need to escalate the question of MP Marcin Romanowski’s immunity to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. This remark frames a nuanced debate about how immunity should be interpreted and applied in high‑profile investigations.
Marcin Romanowski, a member of the ruling party and a former Deputy Minister of Justice, faced detention allegations tied to an ongoing review of the Justice Fund. He confronted eleven charges during prosecutor’s office proceedings, and his release came late on Tuesday after the Warsaw Mokotów District Court cited immunity granted to a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as the basis for the decision.
Related commentary surfaced as readers were reminded of other developments connected to the case. Coverage included criticisms by political opposition figures and analysis of the steps taken by investigators, underscoring a broader public dispute about the quality and accountability of prosecutorial actions.
The public prosecutor’s office found itself at the center of political scrutiny, drawing responses from members of the governing coalition. Deputy Prime Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz publicly urged the National Prosecutor’s Office to learn from what he described as mistakes in the handling of the matter, signaling calls for reforms or at least clearer procedures in the wake of the decision to release Romanowski.
Yet Jerzy Stępień offered a different perspective. He argued that the prosecutor’s office acted in line with established rules. The key point, he said, lies in the interpretation of immunity as it relates to Council of Europe guidelines, which specify that immunity applies primarily to parliamentary statements and to voting matters. In his view, this narrow scope is designed to safeguard a member of parliament from interference that could jeopardize the exercise of their mandate, while still allowing accountability in other legal contexts.
Stępień emphasized that the immunity framework for PACE members was created in response to previous abuses and corruption concerns. He stressed that the regulations purposefully limit immunity to prevent misuse, thereby balancing the immunities enjoyed by elected representatives with the need for lawful proceedings when warranted.
He also recalled that the justice minister had indicated plans to seek a formal interpretation from PACE on how far immunity extends in this specific case. According to Stępień, the practice of invoking PACE immunity is not widespread, which may contribute to public confusion about when it applies and how it could affect ongoing investigations.
The discussion around Korneluk’s position followed as well. Dariusz Korneluk, described as a neo-national prosecutor, stated that the office respected the court’s decision to refrain from applying pre-trial detention to Romanowski. Before submitting detention requests and seeking the Sejm’s permission to bring criminal liability before the court, the office examined whether Romanowski’s membership in PACE would place him under a second shield of immunity. Two legal opinions were obtained, and both determined that such additional immunity did not apply. The Ombudsman concurred with this assessment.
Korneluk added that he would communicate details of the Romanowski case to the president of PACE and did not rule out asking the Assembly to lift his immunity if the circumstances warranted it. In parallel, Romanowski announced plans to pursue charges against individuals who had made the detention decisions, indicating a broader sense of grievance and a demand for accountability.
The unfolding sequence prompts a broader question about how such immunities intersect with the practical functioning of parliamentarians and law enforcement. If, as Stępień suggests, the prosecutor’s office acted within the boundaries of legal interpretation, critics still point to a perceived misstep or misalignment that casts a shadow over the process. Observers from circles critical of the national ruling coalition acknowledged imperfections while acknowledging the core legal argument about immunity, which continues to shape the public discourse around this case.
As the case moves forward, commentators anticipate further statements from various legal and political actors. The dialogue surrounding immunity, detention, and parliamentary oversight remains a live issue with implications for the balance of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the public trust in the prosecutorial system. The evolving narrative will likely frame ongoing debates about how immunities should function in a modern democracy and what reforms, if any, are appropriate to guard both the rights of representatives and the integrity of investigations. The situation remains a focal point for discussions about accountability, legality, and the role of immunity within international parliamentary frameworks. The coverage continues to reflect a complex and contested landscape, with updates anticipated from multiple perspectives and institutions, all contributing to a broader understanding of the implications for governance in Poland and beyond. This analysis draws on reported statements and official positions as attributed to the involved parties and their representatives.
Source attribution: PAP; wPolityce
Related posts:
Romanowski Immunity Lift in Council of Europe Sparks Legal Debate Romanowski Case: Immunity, Prosecution, and a Council of Europe Letter Romanowski Faces Repeated Charges in Justice Fund Case Jerzy Stępień, Onet’s “professor” label and the Duda-State Tribunal discourse Article rewritten for clarity on judicial panel changes in the Romanowski case Contested Immunity and Political Influence in the Romanowski Case Sejm Considers Immunity Lifts for PiS MPs and Allies Amid Justice Fund Probe Immunity and Liability Debate in the Romanowski Case Poland’s Sejm Delegation to PACE: 2025 Powers and Romanowski Debate Public Discourse on Legal Violations and Accountability in Poland Polish Politics: Immunity, Pegasus Probe, and Coalition Talks Immunity and Detention in the Romanowski Case