A Sanctions List in the Hands of a Minister. Ordo Iuris: A Bill That Threatens Freedom of Speech and Property in Poland

---

Today, Poland’s Sejm will vote on the committee report on the government bill on restrictive measures (Sejm print no. 3003). According to the government, the bill is intended to implement EU law. However, in his analysis, Jędrzej Jabłoński of the Ordo Iuris Institute points out that the bill contains something more: a national sanctions list that the EU does not require at all. The decision to place someone on it would be made by a single minister. This could lead to the freezing of assets and even to the taking over of property. The vague grounds for listing mean that civil society organizations taking part in public debate could fall victim to the new provisions. Ordo Iuris recommends rejecting the bill or deleting from it the provisions on national restrictive measures.

The Prime Minister submitted the bill to the Sejm by letter of August 6, 2026. The first reading took place on September 3. On October 19, the report was adopted by an extraordinary subcommittee, and on October 21 by the joint Administration and Internal Affairs Committee, Public Finance Committee, and Economy and Development Committee. The committees introduced amendments to the bill.

Implementation of EU law in name only

The government presents the bill as an act that “is intended to implement European Union law,” namely Directive (EU) 2024/1226. The directive requires member states to criminalize violations of EU restrictive measures. It neither obliges them to create their own sanctions lists nor authorizes them to do so. As Ordo Iuris notes, only part of the bill implements the directive: the criminal provisions and a few definitional and organizational provisions. The drafter admits this itself. In the reverse correlation table, it placed Chapter 2, which establishes national restrictive measures, among the provisions that do not derive from EU law.

According to Ordo Iuris experts, the core of the bill is not even overregulation (so-called gold-plating). It is a separate regime that duplicates the EU sanctions, which apply directly in Poland. Moreover, it is stricter than they are. EU measures are limited to the freezing of assets. The bill also provides for compulsory administration, the compulsory sale of a business and the transfer of ownership to the State Treasury or another entity. At the same time, it lacks the safeguards offered by the EU system: a unanimous decision of the Council, communication of the statement of reasons to the listed person, the right to submit observations, a mandatory review of listings at least once every twelve months, and full judicial review.

Sanctions for a “probability” and for personal ties

The analysis draws attention to the vague grounds for listing. The bill allows sanctions to be imposed on persons with respect to whom there is a “probability of use” of financial resources to support sanctioned entities. Yet it specifies neither the degree of that probability nor the circumstances on the basis of which it would be established. “This provision therefore penalizes a mere supposition, not an act,” the analysis states. Equally vague is the reference to persons “directly associated,” “in particular on account of ties of a personal nature.” This provision allows family members or acquaintances of a listed person to be punished solely because of the relationship between them. The Legislative Bureau of the Chancellery of the Sejm pointed out that these provisions are incompatible with the constitutional principle of legal certainty. The committees, however, made no changes.

Any public awareness campaign could be “manipulation”

The greatest concern is raised by the ground concerning “interference and manipulation in the information environment.” The bill defines it as “deliberate, systematic, coordinated and inauthentic conduct in the information domain, aimed at exerting a significant influence on the opinions, views or behavior of recipients.” Ordo Iuris notes that the only element distinguishing this definition from an ordinary public awareness campaign is the undefined word “inauthentic.” It would be interpreted, in the first instance, by the minister.

Ordo Iuris welcomes the amendments adopted during the committee stage. A real threat must now be demonstrated, and statements, as well as journalistic and publishing activity, have been excluded from the scope of the provision. However, that exclusion ceases to apply if the minister deems a given activity to be “deliberate and actual” manipulation. The provision also covers threats to public order and to “the proper conduct of elections.” Ordo Iuris warns that those in power may resort to these provisions, particularly in the run-up to elections. They would then serve as de facto censorship of persons and organizations calling on voters to vote against them.

The analysis points out that this risk is not theoretical. For years, the claim that opposition to abortion or gender ideology is part of Russia’s information war has been present in public debate. This claim has also found its way into documents produced at the government’s initiative. In the report of the Disinformation Team of the Commission for the Investigation of Russian and Belarusian Influence, dated January 10, 2025, the Ordo Iuris Institute was listed among organizations replicating narratives consistent with Russian ones. If the authority applying the act were to adopt this claim, it could mean the immediate freezing of the funds of organizations defending the right to life, while their donors would face criminal liability.

Ukraine and the US on the list of “states subject to sanctions”?

The bill does not explicitly indicate the states whose support may justify listing. It merely refers to “states subject to restrictive measures of the European Union” and does not define this term. The only list is an annex to the explanatory memorandum to the bill, which enumerates acts concerning 35 states. Alongside Russia, Belarus, Iran and North Korea, it also includes Ukraine, Moldova, Turkey, Serbia, Montenegro, China and the United States. Ordo Iuris analysts emphasize that, under a literal interpretation, acting “for the benefit of or in the interest of” Ukraine or the US could therefore also constitute grounds for listing. In light of the foreign policy of the Republic of Poland, this would be an obvious absurdity.

Minister’s decision binding despite a court judgment

Ordo Iuris also criticizes the listing procedure. The decision is taken by a single person—the minister responsible for internal affairs—without the active participation of the party concerned and without access to the case file. It is immediately enforceable by operation of law and is served solely through publication in the Public Information Bulletin. No request for reconsideration of the case may be filed against it. Moreover, the decision remains in force even after being set aside by a voivodeship administrative court, until the judgment becomes final. Before the case is decided by the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA), a business may already have been sold and property taken over. In the view of Ordo Iuris, this violates the right to a court and the right to appeal against a decision (Art. 45(1) and Art. 78 of the Constitution).

The taking over of property by a decision of the minister is, in turn, contrary to Art. 46 of the Constitution. Under that provision, property may be forfeited only on the basis of a final court judgment. It also violates Art. 21(2), since the bill allows compensation to be excluded or limited in certain situations. The exclusion of claims against the State Treasury, meanwhile, violates Art. 77(1) of the Constitution. The analysis points out that the drafter itself accurately described these limits. In the reverse correlation table, it gives assurances that the bill concerns “only so-called asset freezing,” and that deprivation of ownership may occur only through expropriation or forfeiture ordered by a court.

Ordo Iuris recommendations

In the view of Ordo Iuris, the bill’s flaws concern the entire structure of Chapter 2 rather than individual wording, so amendments will not remove them. Ordo Iuris recommends:

• at the second reading stage, submitting a motion to reject the bill in its entirety or supporting the minority motion to delete Art. 3(2) together with the provisions on national restrictive measures (motion no. 2);
• if these changes are not adopted, voting against the bill;
• possibly considering a national sanctions system solely in a separate act, prepared under the ordinary procedure and with a full assessment of its compliance with the Constitution. At a minimum, such an act would have to define the grounds for listing precisely and exhaustively, including the range of states concerned. It would also have to subject listing to prior or prompt judicial review, guarantee the party’s participation in the proceedings and access to the statement of reasons, limit listing in time and subject it to mandatory review. It should limit interference with property to temporary freezing.

See also:

• Ordo Iuris to the UN: Independent Courts Should Decide the Limits of Free Speech
• Artificial Intelligence Under Brussels’ Supervision: What the VLOSE Status Means for ChatGPT
• Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age – A UN Report
• A Young Pregnant Mother Has Stood Trial. Soon Any of Us Could Fall Victim to Censorship
• Not Only the DSA: Systemic Threats to Freedom of Speech and the Integrity of Democratic Elections in the EU

Source of cover photo: iStock