Prosecutor General Adam Bodnar has asked to obtain authorization from the President of the European Parliament to bring criminal charges against two sitting Members of the European Parliament, Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik. This move was disclosed through a statement from the National Prosecutor’s Office, presented by Anna Adamiak, the spokesperson for the office that is currently operating as the neo-Polish Prokuratura Generalna. The request marks a formal step in a long-running review of compliance with court orders by high-level politicians and signals a broader push to ensure that EU lawmakers are answerable to the law when court directives are at stake. The development is being followed closely by legal observers across Poland and EU partners who are watching to see how supranational accountability mechanisms interact with national judicial processes.
Earlier on the same day, Bodnar submitted formal letters to Roberta Metsola, the President of the European Parliament, seeking the necessary authority to initiate criminal proceedings against Kamiński and Wąsik. The letters lay out the factual basis and legal rationale behind the request, aiming to secure a green light for prosecutors to proceed with formal charges should the consent be granted. The move underscores the seriousness with which Polish prosecutors view the alleged violations and their commitment to pursuing appropriate remedies within the Union’s legal framework, even when such actions touch on politically sensitive figures. The procedure reflects a careful balance between national judicial authority and the privileges associated with MEP immunity, while keeping a clear eye on due process and procedural safeguards.
Adamiak noted in a press release published on the National Prosecutor’s Office website that the Warsaw Prosecutor’s Office is pursuing proceedings for non-compliance with a final judgment of the Warsaw District Court that ordered a ban on holding public office. In practical terms, this means the office is examining whether the two representatives knowingly disregarded a binding court order that limited their official responsibilities. The emphasis on final judgments signals a commitment to upholding the supremacy of court mandates and ensuring that even high-ranking elected officials are not above legal constraints. The case thus sits at the intersection of administrative law and electoral accountability, a space that has drawn intense public interest.
The investigation gathered evidence indicating that Kamiński and Wąsik, despite being legally barred from exercising any public functions, continued to act as deputies. They participated in a Sejm session on December 21, 2023, taking part in votes 141 through 147, and they attended the Sejm Committee on Administration and Internal Affairs meeting on December 28, 2023. Prosecutors argue that these exact activities amounted to breaches of the court-imposed ban and thus warranted formal examination as potential violations of criminal prohibitions tied to official duties. The sequence of events cited by investigators paints a picture of ongoing engagement in parliamentary work in the face of a direct prohibition and raises questions about intent, knowledge, and the effectiveness of legal restraints in the Polish political system.
Adamiak stated that the collected evidence supported charging Kamiński and Wąsik under Article 244 of the Criminal Code. The authorities indicated that on April 18, 2024, the case would be prepared for formal charge supplementation and then forwarded to the court for adjudication. This timeline reflects a measured approach designed to ensure that all procedural steps are observed, and that prosecutors have a robust factual and legal foundation before presenting the matter to the judiciary. The process emphasizes the need for careful documentation and a clear articulation of elements that establish criminal liability in the context of disobeying a published court order related to public office.
Both Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik are currently serving their tenth term as Members of the European Parliament and enjoy immunity as MEPs. Bodnar continues to pursue the matter, arguing that every available legal avenue should be explored, even if some observers find the arguments unconventional, in order to address the alleged violation of the public official prohibition and the potential detention in January that sparked debates about parliamentary immunity and executive authority. The case thus sits at the heart of ongoing debates about how immunities function in practice, what level of immunity should shield lawmakers in different contexts, and where the line lies between safeguarding legislative independence and allowing accountability when binding court orders are involved.
Additional context from related developments indicates ongoing discussion about the scope of immunity and how it intersects with actions taken by lawmakers in relation to court orders and executive decisions. The prosecutor’s office emphasizes that the aim is to ensure accountability for any breaches of a court mandate, while political and legal observers weigh the implications for parliamentary procedure and the balance of powers within Poland and the broader EU framework. The narrative here is not merely about one investigation but about how rule of law principles are applied when the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature interact in high-profile scenarios that attract public attention across borders.
In parallel coverage, there has been ongoing discussion about calls to examine immunity provisions in specific cases and about the broader mechanisms for reviewing investigations involving sitting parliamentarians. The authorities reiterate that immunity is a protective measure, but it does not shield individuals from criminal liability when there is clear evidence of violations of binding court orders or public office prohibitions. The dialogue around immunity reflects a wider concern about how to preserve the integrity of representative institutions while ensuring that legal accountability remains effective and timely under the scrutiny of both national courts and EU governance structures.
This case underscores a continuing emphasis on upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the separation of powers remains intact. The outcome of pending charges will determine the next steps in the judicial process and will be watched closely by legislators, legal experts, and the public across Poland and the wider European community.