Extraordinary measures in the event situations  of particular danger in cyberspace

In the article the Authors presented a problem of extraordinary measures in the event situations of particular danger in cyberspace. The analysis of this issue is made on the basis of constitutional and legal solutions (Act of martial law, Act of the state of emergency, Act of the state of natural disaster). The Authors refered to the concept of cyberspace and classified the risks in this area. The also assessed the appropriateness of the measures adopted by the legislature.

When in 2020 the World Health Organization announced a COVID-19 contagious disease pandemic, it was clear that governments must take actions to limit the consequences of pandemia. Poland was one of the first to introduce far-reaching measures, limiting freedom of movement and closing an increasing number of business and activities. The Polish Constitution contains potential extraordinary measures, including the provision for declaring a “state of natural disaster”, but the Polish government has refrained from enacting it. Instead, it is based on a “state of epidemic”, which is not provided for in the Constitution as the legal ground for limiting human rights. The purpose of this study is to answer the question whether human rights restrictions introduced during the epidemic have a sufficient legal basis from the point of view of the Polish Constitution and the resulting principles.

Is Polish Constitution adjusted to the times of crisis? Selected problems and de lege ferenda propositions

The subject of this article is the question whether the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 provides sufficient guarantees for the continuity of government and cooperation of public authorities in the event of sudden threats such as war, rebellion, natural disaster or terrorist attack. The analysis shows that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland is prepared for standard emergency situations, but does not contain procedures in the event of the worst-case scenarios: necessity of state of emergency during electoral campaign; failure to gather a minimum quorum of 230 deputies for the needs of a session of the parliament; the death of top politicians in the state.

Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 2 kwietnia 1997 r. stworzyła możliwość wprowadzenia trzech odmiennych stanów nadzwyczajnych w sytuacji szczególnych zagrożeń. Specjalne przepisy dotyczące stanów nadzwyczajnych zostały określone w trzech odrębnych ustawach, które zostały przyjęte w 2002 r. W latach 2005–2019 w Polsce wystąpiły liczne zdarzenia, które media określały jako klęski żywiołowe. Pomimo że regulacje ustawowe obowiązują od 2002 r. (Dz.U. 2002 nr 62 poz. 558), w Trzeciej Rzeczypospolitej nigdy nie wprowadzono stanu nadzwyczajnego. Posłowie w ramach swojej aktywności parlamentarnej kierowali na przestrzeni V, VI, VII i VIII kadencji zapytania i interpelacje w tej sprawie. Analiza aktywności poselskich związanych ze stanem klęski żywiołowej może być pomocna przy próbie identyfikacji sposobu postrzegania tego stanu nadzwyczajnego przez polityków, a to z kolei pozwoli ustalić przyczyny nieposługiwania się tym instrumentem prawnym przez rządzących.

The reaction of the Polish government to the COVID-19 pandemic was the undertaking of numerous actions, which resulted in restrictions in running a business activity. The made decisions gave rise to controversies due to the scale of restrictions despite failure to implement any of the constitutional states of emergency. The article presents an analysis of the scale of restrictions set during the first wave of the pandemic, and an attempt was made to compare their scope with solutions envisioned for the state of emergency.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic in the world made it necessary to take action to minimize the negative consequences for human health and life and the economy. Citizens’ political freedoms and rights are among the most important rights in a democratic state. In Poland, the Minister of Health introduced the “state of epidemic” by way of a regulation. The procedure and rank of adopted legal acts raised constitutional doubts from the very beginning. First of all, the failure to introduce one of the constitutionally defined states of emergency, especially a state of natural disaster, which by its nature corresponded the best to the epidemic situation in the country. The author put forward the thesis that the state of the epidemic announced in Poland did not meet the constitutional requirements and that there were no grounds for the introduced restrictions on the freedom and rights of an individual. Legal solutions introduced in selected countries in terms of their constitutionality are also compared.