Publication date: July 24, 2026
Analysis of key changes for business managers
We have analyzed the proposed changes to criminal procedure, which introduce a new structure for conducting proceedings, moving away from the current, restrictive model. The foundation of the amendment is the liberalization of regulations and the strengthening of procedural guarantees for suspects, which is a direct response to the need to implement EU directives and restore the adversarial standard.
Compared to the current state of affairs, the draft law shifts away from the inquisitorial model and instead provides real legal protection for economic participants. These changes are crucial for individuals serving on corporate boards, effectively increasing their legal security in the area of risks inherent in running a business.
Recent years in Polish criminal procedure have been characterized by the primacy of procedural efficiency over individual rights, leading to a systematic tightening of discipline. This has manifested itself, among other things, in the facilitation of the use of preventive measures and the admission of evidence obtained illegally. Project 1600 makes a systemic shift towards strengthening citizen guarantees, restoring the principle of full equality of the parties and fair litigation. For the business sector, this means a real opportunity to actively shape their defenses at the pre-trial stage, instead of adopting a solely reactive approach.
A key element of this reform is to address years of neglect related to the implementation of the so-called EU defense directives (Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ L 294, 2013, p. 1)). The existing regulations failed to meet European standards, which became the basis for the European Commission to initiate proceedings for Poland’s violation of its treaty obligations. The most important change in this regard is Article 245 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that a detained person be immediately allowed to contact a defense attorney and have a direct conversation. As the bill’s justification indicates, detention is a criminal act aimed at prosecuting, and therefore a lawyer or legal advisor providing assistance at this stage has full defense status. Furthermore, the introduction of mandatory on-call duty for lawyers and legal advisors, as defined in Article 245 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, guarantees effective legal assistance from the very first minute of the proceedings.
This solution is important for management bodies, as the isolation of an organization’s leader creates the risk of paralyzing the entity’s decision-making. The guarantee of immediate legal assistance enables the implementation of crisis management procedures and significantly reduces the risk of submitting flawed procedural declarations with a high degree of economic complexity.
Project 1600 introduces systemic mechanisms to limit the arbitrariness of imposing preventive measures in isolation. A significant change is the increase in the threshold for a severe sentence from 8 to 10 years (Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the requirement to demonstrate a real risk of perversion in each case. This eliminates the automatic nature of detention in commercial cases, obliging the court to assess whether the severity of the impending sanction actually poses a threat to the course of proceedings in the specific factual circumstances.
The new wording of Article 248 §§ 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure serves to discipline law enforcement agencies. It introduces an absolute obligation to release a detainee if, within twenty-four hours (reduced from the current forty-eight) of being brought to the attention of the court, they are not served with a detention order and justification. The legislature establishes an absolute prohibition on re-arrest based on the same facts and evidence. This solution curbs the practice of circumventing procedural deadlines by repeatedly detaining an individual under the same circumstances. For governing bodies, this regulation guarantees the stability of their procedural status and protects personal freedom through repeated isolation.
The reform is complemented by the expansion of evidence disclosure. The amendment to Article 156 § 5a of the Code of Criminal Procedure removes the previous restriction on the exclusion of witness statements from accessible files. The current wording requires the authority to immediately provide the suspect and defense attorney with evidence attached to the arrest request. Restoring full equality of arms allows the defense to substantively refute the prosecution’s entire case, rather than select fragments. For management, implementing these rigors provides fundamental protection against the use of isolation as a pressure tool, directly protecting the reputation and operational stability of the company.
The planned amendment introduces a fundamental change to the Polish criminal process, restoring the primacy of procedural fairness to establishing the material truth at all costs. A key element of the reform is the definitive rejection of the admissibility of so-called “fruits of the poisonous tree,” which directly implements the fair trial standard. Under the current legal framework, shaped by the controversial wording of Article 168a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence cannot be deemed inadmissible solely on the basis that it was obtained in violation of procedural rules or through a prohibited act. Therefore, previous case law permitted the procedural validation of evidence from unlawful sources, provided it was not obtained as a result of the most serious crimes (such as murder or deprivation of liberty). The amendment replaces this model with an absolute prohibition on using materials obtained as a result of a prohibited act. This excludes the possibility of subsequently deeming evidence obtained in violation of the law admissible and prevents law enforcement agencies from remedying procedural deficiencies by invoking an overriding public interest.
In the area of operational control, the reform introduces adequacy rules, which significantly modifies the current procedure for handling incidental evidence. The previous regime of Article 168b of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for almost unlimited use of wiretapping materials in cases involving any crime, even if they did not fall within the list of acts justifying the use of operational control. This led to a phenomenon referred to in the doctrine as fishing expeditions, where surveillance ordered in high-stakes cases became a gateway to seeking marginal violations, such as fiscal violations, which would not, in themselves, legitimize such a profound interference with civil liberties. The amendment thus compels the prosecutor to exercise a higher level of investigative diligence, shifting the defense’s focus from substantive analysis of evidence to reviewing the legality of its acquisition.
For the business sector, the implementation of these solutions brings enormous guarantee benefits, primarily in the form of protecting the integrity of business communications and eliminating uncertainty as to the procedural status of managers.
The analysis is based on the standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of Article 6 of the ECHR, as well as the constitutional principle of proportionality and the right to privacy. The new wording reflects the desire to civilize criminal procedure, where the reliability of state authorities becomes paramount over the ad hoc effectiveness of the public prosecutor, which is the foundation of economic security in a state governed by the rule of law.
The overall proposed changes to criminal procedure should be viewed as a significant strengthening of the legal position of entrepreneurs and management. The shift from an inquisitorial model to a fully adversarial and transparent judicial process significantly minimizes the risk of procedural abuses, which could previously be used as a tool for extraneous pressure in commercial disputes. The reinstatement of strict evidentiary prohibitions and the shortening of procedural deadlines for deprivation of liberty compel law enforcement agencies to adhere to a higher standard of diligence, which directly translates into the operational stability of businesses. Under the new legal framework, the most crucial element of a defense strategy is not only the substantive refutation of allegations but, above all, rigorous oversight of the legality of the state’s operational actions.
Sources:
Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1);
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1);
Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ EU L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1, OJ EU L 201, 30.7.2019, p. 47, OJ EU L 39, 21.02.2022, p. 1 and OJ EU L 2023/2843, 27.12.2023);
Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ L 65, 11.03.2016, p. 1);