Keywords
Internal Security Agency
operational and investigative actions
operational surveillance
surveillance
individual rights and freedoms
How to Cite
Abstract
The material scope of the research problem presented in the text encompasses the issues concerned with operational surveillance that the Polish civilian counter-intelligence service, i.e. the Internal Security Agency (in Polish abbreviated as ABW – Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego), is authorised to. The main purpose of the analysis is to assess the changes introduced as a result of the passing of the so-called Surveillance Act in 2016. The Act was supposed to introduce new regulations with regard to the powers concerning operational surveillance and obtaining of ICT data, granted to particular secret and police services. The said changes were enforced by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal, which in 2014 found numerous violations of the provisions of the Constitutions of the Republic of Poland caused by the existing regulations authorising the services to engage in particular operational and investigative actions.
In order to elaborate the material scope of the research problem, and to present the conclusions, the following research questions have been presented in the text: Do the legal regulations concerning the powers vested in the Polish civilian counter-intelligence service within operational surveillance infringe individual rights and freedoms (e.g. the right to privacy, protection of personal information, privacy of correspondence), and if so, then to what extent?
Functional and pro-constitutional interpretations have been applied to assess the provisions regulating the powers of the Internal Security Agency with regard to operational surveillance and obtaining of ICT data. The functional interpretation focuses on the function of selected legal solutions, whereas the pro-constitutional interpretation focuses on the assessment of legal solutions in the context of the principles of a democratic state ruled by law, as well as human rights and freedoms. As regards the pro-constitutional interpretation, the tool used for assessment is the test of proportionality, i.e. the rule used for interpreting legal norms according to the degree and legitimacy of the interference in individual rights and freedoms.
References
Act of 6 June 1997 – The Code of Criminal Procedure (Journal of Laws 1997, no. 89, item 555, consolidated text).
Act of 6 June 1997 – The Criminal Code (Journal of Laws 1997, no. 88, item 553, consolidated text).
Act of 24 May 2002 on the Internal Security Agency and the Foreign Intelligence Agency (Journal of Laws of 2002, no. 74, item 676, as amended).
Act of 18 July 2002 on providing services by electronic means (Journal of Laws 2002, no. 144, item 1204, as amended).
Act of 16 July 2004, Telecommunications Act (Journal of Laws 2004, no. 171, item 1800, as amended).
Act of 23 November 2012, Postal Law (Journal of Laws 2012, item 1529, as amended).
Act of 15 January 2016 amending the Act on the Police, and certain other acts (Journal of Laws, no. 2016, item 147) [the so-called Surveillance Act].
Act of 10 June 2016 on counter-terrorism activities (Journal of Laws 2016, item 904).
Announcement by the Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of 6 February 2020 on publication of the consolidated text of the Act on providing services by electronic means (Journal of Laws 2020, item 344).
Announcement by the Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of 23 February 2021 on publication of the consolidated text of the Telecommunications Act (Journal of Laws 2021, item 576, consolidated text).
Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, (Application No. 62540/00), European Court of Huma Rights (2008), 30 January 2008.
Bäcker R., Rak J. (2019), Trajektoria trwania opancerzonych demokracji, „Studia nad Autorytaryzmem i Totalitaryzmem”, vol. 41, no. 3.
Barber B. R. (2003), Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age, University of California Press, Berkeley–Los Angeles.
Bodnar A., et al. (2019), How to Saddle Pegasus. Observance of civil rights in the activities of security services: objectives of the reform, Commissioner for Human Rights, Warsaw.
Bożek M., et al. (2014), Służby specjalne w strukturze władz publicznych. Zagadnienia prawnoustrojowe, Kluwer, Warszawa.
Case of Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, (Application no. 4907/18), European Court of Huma Rights (2021), 7 May 2021.
CDL-AD(2016)012-e: Poland – Opinion on the Act of 15 January 2016 amending the Police Act and certain other Acts, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 107th Plenary Session (Venice, 10–11 June 2016).
Chrabkowski M. (2013), Wykorzystanie metod pracy operacyjnej w czynnościach sprawdzających (uwagi do artykułu K. Chałubek), „Prokuratura i Prawo”, no. 7–8.
Czuchnowski W. (2016), Bezpieczeństwo. Układ w specsłużbach, https://wyborcza.pl/politykaekstra/1,132907,20092096,bezpieczenstwo-uklad-w-specsluzbach.html?_gl=1*m37qjh*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE2MTUzNjQ0OTAuQ2owS0NRaUEtYUdDQmhDd0FSSXNBSERsNXhfelJtMDFLVFNKWk1Na2YxRG50NnRENkFZUnVYRE1JWm83RTBOZkNlZUp0MDJRX0VvR19UTWFBb3pnRUFMd193Y0I, 20.05.2016.
D. Popescu v. Romania, No. 2 (Application No. 71525/01), European Court of Huma Rights (2007), 26 July 2007.
Falenta P. P. (2020), Uprawnienia operacyjne Policji o charakterze inwigilacyjnym, Marszałek, Toruń.
Gabriel-Węglowski M. (2018), Działania antyterrorystyczne. Komentarz, Kluwer, Warszawa.
Gardocka T., Jagiełło D. (eds.) (2017), Zagadnienie dowodowe w procesie karnym, C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
Gardocki L. (1990), Zagadnienia teorii kryminalizacji, PWN, Warszawa.
Garlicki L. (2020), Polskie prawo konstytucyjne, Kluwer, Warszawa.
Grochowski R. (2013), Rola służb specjalnych w demokratycznym państwie prawa, „Środkoweuropejskie Studia Polityczne”, no. 4.
Gruszczak A. (2019), Służby specjalne do naprawy. »Wymogiem skuteczności jest zespolenie«, https://infosecurity24.pl/sluzby-specjalne-do-naprawy-wymogiem-skutecznosci-jest-zespolenie-komentarz, 14.10.2019.
Huvig v. France (Series A No. 176-B; Application No. 11105/84) European Court of Human Rights (1990), 12 EHRR 528, 24 April 1990.
Iordachi and Others v. Moldova (Application No. 25198/02), European Court of Huma Rights (2009), 14 September 2009.
Itrich-Drabarek J. (2019), Etyka zawodowa funkcjonariuszy służb państwowych, Difin, Warszawa.
Jabłoński M. (ed.) (2010), Wolności i prawa jednostki w Konstytucji RP, vol. 1: Idee i zasady przewodnie konstytucyjnej regulacji wolności i praw jednostki w RP, Beck, Warszawa.
Jagiełło D. (2019), Taktyka kryminalistycznych czynności dowodowych, C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
Jovanović M. (2016), How to Justify »Militant Democracy«: Meta-ethics and the Game-like Character of Democracy, „Philosophy and Social Criticism”, vol. 42, no. 8.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 12 January 1999, ref. no. P 2/98.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 9 October 2001, ref. no. SK 8/00.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 12 December 2005, ref. no. K 32/04.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 30 July 2014, ref. no. K 23/11.
Kaili E. (2019), Question for written answer E-005505/2020 to the Commission (Subject: Pegasus spyware).
Kennedy v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 26839/05), European Court of Huma Rights (2010), 18 May 2010.
Kruslin v. France (Series A No. 176-B; Application No. 11801/85), European Court of Huma Rights (1990), 12 EHRR 547, 24 April 1990.
Kulesza J. (2017), Problemy teorii kryminalizacji. Studium z zakresu prawa karnego i konstytucyjnego, UŁ, Łódź.
Laskowski D. (2017), Polskie służby specjalne, FNCE, Poznań.
Lerner M. (1938), It Is Later Than You Think: The Need for a Militant Democracy, The Viking Press, New York.
Loewenstein K. (1935a), Autocracy versus Democracy in Contemporary Europe, I, „The American Political Science Review”, vol. 29, no. 4.
Loewenstein K. (1935b), Autocracy Versus Democracy in Contemporary Europe, II, „American Political Science Review”, vol. 29, no. 5.
Loewenstein K. (1937a), Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, I, „American Political Science Review”, vol. 31, no. 3.
Loewenstein K. (1937b), Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, II, „American Political Science Review”, vol. 31, no. 4.
Maddox G. (2019), Karl Loewenstein, Max Lerner, and militant democracy: an appeal to »strong democracy«, „Australian Journal of Political Science”, doi: 10.1080/10361146.2019.1604943.
Malkopoulou A., Norman L. (2018), Three Models of Democratic Self-Defence: Militant Democracy and Its Alternatives, „Political Studies”, vol. 66, no. 2.
Marczak B., et al. (2018), Hide and Seek: Tracking NSO Group’s Pegasus Spyware to Operations in 45 Countries, „Citizen Lab Research Report”, no. 113, University of Toronto.
Miłkowski T. M. (2020), Czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawcze a prawa i wolności jednostki, Kluwer, Warszawa.
Mounk Y. (2018), The People vs. Democracy. Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Nowacki J., Tabor Z. (2016), Wstęp do prawoznawstwa, Kluwer, Warszawa.
The Ombudsman’s Application to the Constitutional Tribunal of 18 February 2016 (II.519.109.2015.KŁS/VV/AG).
The Ombudsman’s application to the Prime Minister of 9 September 2019 (VII.519.2.2019.AG).
The Ombudsman’s application to the chairperson of the Secret Services Committee of 9 September 2019 (VII.519.2.2019.AG).
Opaliński B., Rogalski M., Szustakiewicz P. (2017), Ustawa o Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego oraz Agencji Wywiadu. Komentarz, C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
Opinia Naczelnej Rady Adwokackiej dot. druków 550, 558 i 569 z dnia 10 czerwca 2016 (2016), http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki8ka.nsf/0/5E5066F89108080CC1257FD5003AFDBC/%24File/550%2C558%2C569-001.pdf, 04.05.2021.
O wygaszaniu państwa prawa – wywiad z Prof. Ewą Łętowską i Prof. Jerzym Zajadło Rafała Kalukina (2020), https://palestra.pl/pl/aktualnosci/artykul/o-wygaszaniu-panstwa-prawa-wywiad-z-prof.-ewa-letowska-i-prof.-jerzym-zajadlo-rafala-kalukina, 25.11.2020.
Panoptykon (2018), Czy ABW inwigilowała uczestników protestów? Wygrywamy w sądzie z Ministerstwem Cyfryzacji!, https://panoptykon.org/wygrana-z-mc, 12.12.2018.
Piński J., Szwejgiert T. (2021), Kamiński, Penelopa, Warszawa.
Płatek M. (2019), Kreowanie „groźnych, niebezpiecznych i złych”, „Archiwum Kryminologii”, no. 1.
Prado Bugallo v. Spain (Application No. 58496/00), European Court of Huma Rights (2003), 18 May 2003.
Pratt J. (2007), Penal Populism, Routledge, London.
Procedural Writ by the Ombudsman of 14 March 2018 re the case with ref. no. K 9/16.
Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application no. 43447/19), European Court of Huma Rights (2021), 22 July 2021.
Rogalski M. (2019), Podsłuch procesowy i pozaprocesowy. Kontrola i utrwalanie rozmów na podstawie kpk oraz ustaw szczegółowych, Kluwer, Warszawa.
Rosicki L. (1993), Possibilities of using operational material in preliminary proceedings /a typescript – a graduate thesis/, University of Wrocław, Wrocław.
Rosicki R. (2014), Surveillance and data retention in Poland, „Public Policy and Economic Development”, no. 2.
Rosicki R. (2016), Poland’s internal security as exemplified by the tasks and activities of the Internal Security Agency in the period 2007–2015, „Przegląd Politologiczny”, no. 1.
Rosicki R. (2017), Special services and surveillance of citizens in Poland (2015–2017), doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18880.23042.
Rzeczkowski G. (2018), Służby w służbie partii (rozmowa z gen. Krzysztofem Bondarykiem), https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1774718,1,sluzby-w-sluzbie-partii.read, 10.12.2018.
Rzeczkowski G. (2019), Obcym alfabetem, Arbitror, Warszawa.
Rzeczkowski G. (2020), Służby bardzo polityczne, https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/spoleczenstwo/1981870,1,sluzby-bardzo-polityczne.read, 20.12.2020.
Rzeczkowski G. (2021), Szpiedzy przyjmą do pracy, „Polityka”, no. 21.
Szafrańska M. (2015), Penalny populizm a media, Wydawnictwo UJ, Kraków.
Szumiło-Kulczycka D. (2012), Czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawcze i ich relacje do procesu karnego, LexisNexis, Warszawa.
Weber & Saravia v. Germany (Application No. 54934/00), European Court of Huma Rights (2006), 29 June 2006.
Wiatrowski P. (2013), Dyrektywy wykładni prawa karnego materialnego w judykaturze Sądu Najwyższego, C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
Widacki J. (ed.) (2017), Populizm prawny, Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego, Kraków.
Wronkowska S. (2005), Podstawowe pojęcia prawa i prawoznawstwa, Ars boni et aequi, Poznań.
Wronkowska S., Ziembiński Z. (1997), Zarys teorii prawa, Ars boni et aequi, Poznań.
Zdybel R. (2016), Funkcja wykrywacza i dowodowa postępowania karnego, C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
Zalewski S. (2021), Kontrola służb specjalnych w Polsce, Difin, Warszawa.
Zieliński M. (1998), Wyznaczniki reguły wykładni prawa, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny”, no. 3–4.
Zieliński M., et al. (2009), Zintegrowanie polskich koncepcji wykładni prawa, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny”, no. 4.