PiS Immunity Debate in the European Parliament: Campaigns, Controversy, and Legal Questions

From a European Parliament perspective, the move to waive immunity against four PiS members is viewed as a troubling development. The request targets Tomasz Poręba, Beata Mazurek, Patryk Jaki, and Beata Kempa, and it arises after a complaint filed by activist Rafał Gaweł, founder of the Observatory on Racist and Xenophobic Behavior. The complaint centers on a warning issued by PiS about the migration policy of the ruling party in Poland. Unofficial reports indicate the matter may be sent to the EP legal committee for review on Monday. The charge hinges on alleged violations of Article 256 of the Penal Code, which covers incitement to hatred and related misconduct by both those who created an election advertisement and those who shared it. [Source: wPolityce]nnREAD MORE:n– ONLY HERE. Do they want to remove PiS MEPs from the European Parliament? Jaki calls it a setup of a criminal, opposition and politicized judges. [Source: wPolityce]n– ONLY HERE. The law is meant to strip PiS MEPs of immunity? Beata Kempa argues the case is well established. [Source: wPolityce]nnEarly February reports from TVP Info described Gaweł as a criminal figure who faced multiple accusations of financial embezzlement during the prior government and who remains sought by police after leaving the country following a verdict. [Source: wPolityce]nnFrom the European Parliament’s view, the request to waive immunity is seen as a blow to due process and as an act that benefits a person who appears to be involved in ongoing campaign activities. An adviser to the ruling party acknowledged responsibility for the campaign and characterized the move as harassment, while criticizing the Polish judiciary for what is described as politicization and a pattern of rule violations. [Source: wPolityce]nnPoreba told PAP that the matter is being used as a political tactic rather than a genuine legal action.nnAs you can see, it is framed by some as a political hoax meant to disrupt the work of fellow Members of the European Parliament. The discussion around whether sharing or liking the election advertisement constitutes harm continues to be debated, while concerns about timeliness and political campaigning are rising. It is noted that the case is unfolding during an active Polish election cycle, with the head of the ruling party’s campaign identified as one of the individuals affected. The broader debate points to questions about rule of law and institutional independence in Poland. [Source: wPolityce]nnLegutko, a PiS member, sent a letter to fellow MEPs arguing that Gaweł’s past, including a final conviction for fraud and a period of hiding outside the European Union, makes Gaweł an unreliable source. The letter also links the defamation headlines to the broader political confrontation between factions and to attempts to cast doubt on the credibility of opponents. The author notes that the timing of the defamation complaints aligns with ongoing clashes within the political arena and suggests that the attacks aim to complicate re-election efforts. [Source: wPolityce]nnLegutko reiterated that the defamation case now surrounding the issue is being used to attack colleagues and to shape public perception during the campaign season. The response emphasizes that the act of liking or sharing the campaign material should be seen as an expression of political free speech rather than a criminal action. The EP’s handling of immunity requests is described as unprecedented and as part of the broader political conflict occurring in Poland. [Source: wPolityce]nnREAD MORE: MEPs process requests to withdraw immunity from PiS members. The so-called racism tracker case adds a new layer to the discussion. [Source: wPolityce]nkk and PAP.