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);

Artykuł Criminal Procedure Reform (Project 1600) – Polish Standards of Protection in Commercial Matters pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

1. Reports only via e-Sanepid

Every dietary supplement introduced to the market for the first time must be reported to the Chief Sanitary Inspector (GIS). Until now, various forms were acceptable – paper or electronic, with a handwritten or electronic signature. After the amendment comes into effect, the only acceptable method will be the e-Sanepid platform.

What does this mean in practice?

• It is necessary for each person submitting notifications to have a qualified electronic signature or a trusted profile.
• All communication with sanitary inspection bodies – letters, decisions, and confirmations – will be handled through the platform account. The moment of notification submission will be clearly confirmed with an official receipt, eliminating disputes over the deadline.
• Companies that have previously used paper forms or traditional correspondence must immediately switch to the new channel and ensure appropriate employee training.

The change also concerns the timing of the notification obligation: the previous option to notify the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) at the stage of intended product introduction is no longer available. The obligation now arises at the time of actual introduction to the market.

2. Strict deadlines and automatic presumption of irregularities

The amendment introduces a completely new mechanism for conducting investigations. This change has the greatest potential to surprise companies without effective internal compliance procedures.

How does the new mechanism work?

If the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate initiates an investigation and requests the entity to submit a scientific opinion, the company has exactly 14 days to submit an application to an accredited scientific unit – at the same time forwarding a copy of it to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate.

The mechanism for presuming irregularities is a significant innovation. Previously, a company’s inaction during the proceedings did not automatically result in any legal consequences – the proceedings could drag on for years. Following the amendment, any failure to meet the 14-day deadline will lead to direct negative consequences, regardless of whether the product is safe.

3. Advertising without reporting? A fine of nearly one million zlotys

This change directly impacts brands engaging in active digital marketing. Previously, advertising or presenting a dietary supplement without prior notification to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) was punishable by a fine (a misdemeanor). Following the amendment, this becomes grounds for imposing an administrative fine – with new, significantly higher penalties.

What exactly is prohibited?

The amendment penalizes not only the sale of a supplement without reporting it to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS), but also the mere advertising or presentation of it if the notification has not been effectively submitted. In other words:

• Sponsored post on Instagram or Facebook promoting a new supplement before notification = grounds for an administrative penalty.
• Product page in the online store visible to the public before successful reporting to GIS = risk of infringement.
• Promotional materials sent to wholesalers or distributors before GIS is notified = potential infringement.
• Influencer marketing initiated before the date of effective notification = liability on the part of the entity commissioning the campaign.

Prohibition on suggesting medicinal properties – wider scope

The amendment expands liability for violations of advertising requirements from labeling to the entire marketing message. Previously, sanctions primarily covered incorrect packaging labeling. Following the amendment, a company is responsible for every communication channel – online advertising, point-of-sale materials, newsletters, or YouTube videos – if the message suggests that a varied diet does not provide sufficient nutrients, or if a supplement is presented as a medicinal product.

4. Public register – the company’s reputation under public scrutiny

The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) has maintained a register of dietary supplements before, but the amendment will significantly expand its scope and availability. The data will be published on the e-Sanepid platform and will include:

• the name of the product and its qualitative composition (without quantitative data – the recipe remains protected),
• product qualification proposed by the entity,
• information about the initiation or ongoing investigation,
• data on the detection of a prohibited ingredient.

5. Fines – increase by over 330%

The maximum administrative fine for violating food safety regulations is increasing from 30 to 100 times the average monthly salary. At the current salary level, this means:

The new penalties are imposed administratively (not as fiscal or misdemeanor offenses), which means faster proceedings and no need to prove intentional guilt. A mere finding of a violation is sufficient. The increased level of sanctions has a real deterrent effect, especially for companies with turnover in the tens of millions of zlotys.

The biggest risks – a practical overview

Artykuł CLIENT ALERT Dietary supplements market in Poland Amendments to food safety regulations | May 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

At the outset, it should be emphasized that the regulation relating to witnesses in the Act of 29 August 1997, the Tax Ordinance, is laconic.

If a decision is made to take evidence by questioning a witness, the party must be notified of the place and time of the hearing at least seven days in advance. The parties may participate and ask questions during the hearing (Article 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

The doctrine defines a witness as someone possessing knowledge of facts relevant to the case that the tax authority is attempting to reconstruct for the purposes of the proceedings. According to the commentary on the Tax Ordinance, a witness in tax proceedings can be either a person present at an event and thus relying on their personal observations, or one who obtained information indirectly, most often from other people.

Only a natural person can be a witness, regardless of age or legal capacity. The ability to perceive reality and articulate one’s observations is crucial. Therefore, it is impossible for another entity, such as an organizational unit without legal personality or a legal person, to attempt to act as a witness.

Under applicable law, witness testimony is one of the admissible forms of evidence in tax proceedings. If this evidence is used, a concise transcript of the witness’s testimony is mandatory. However, there is one step that cannot be taken spontaneously during the proceedings. If a decision is made to hear evidence from a witness, the party must be notified of the location and time of the hearing at least seven days in advance. Parties may participate in the hearing and ask questions during it.

Witness rights and obligations (including the right to refuse to testify or answer questions)

However, the provisions of the Tax Ordinance specify groups of individuals who cannot be questioned as witnesses. This primarily applies to individuals who, due to health conditions or other circumstances, are unable to properly perceive reality or communicate their observations. This exclusion also applies to individuals obligated to maintain the confidentiality of classified information, unless they have been released from this obligation in a legally prescribed manner. The final category includes clergy of legally recognized denominations, but only with respect to information covered by the seal of confession.

This category primarily includes individuals who, due to illness or disability, are unable to properly perceive their surroundings or communicate their observations to others. However, this does not mean that every person suffering from a mental disorder is automatically excluded from testifying. Their condition at the time of questioning is crucial – if they are capable of consciously perceiving and reporting facts, they may be questioned. In situations raising doubts, the tax authority may consult an expert, such as a psychologist or doctor. It is also worth remembering that communicating observations does not have to be exclusively verbal. Other forms of communication are also permissible, including non-verbal signals and behaviors.

Another group includes individuals obligated to maintain the confidentiality of classified information under circumstances covered by confidentiality, unless they have been released from this obligation in accordance with applicable regulations. This applies to classified information classified as top secret, secret, confidential, and restricted. As the regulation itself indicates, it is possible to release such a person from the obligation of confidentiality, however, this is an exceptional situation, not specifically addressed by the Tax Ordinance. With this in mind, legal scholars refer to the provisions of Articles 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The final group excluded from witnessing are clergy of legally recognized denominations – regarding facts covered by the seal of confession. The key issue is the religion and church to which the clergy belongs, as this exclusion applies only to denominations recognized by the Polish legal system.

Apart from the exceptions mentioned above, the obligation to fulfill public obligations imposed on individuals by the state is the rule. Witnessing is generally considered one of these obligations, so serving as a witness is generally unavoidable. Failure to comply with the authorities’ orders may result in disciplinary action.

Public administration bodies, including tax authorities, are obligated to act on the basis and within the limits of the law. Therefore, if for any reason it proves impossible to obtain evidence in the form of witness testimony, this cannot have negative consequences for the taxpayer.

The obligation to testify, however, is not absolute. The legislature has granted the right to refuse to testify to immediate family members of a party to the proceedings. This right is available to spouses, ascendants (e.g., parents and grandparents), descendants (children and grandchildren), siblings, first-degree relatives, as well as persons in a relationship of adoption, guardianship, or wardship. Importantly, the right to refuse to testify does not expire upon the termination of the marriage, adoption, guardianship, or wardship. Exercising this right must also not result in any negative consequences for the parties to the proceedings.

Other witnesses generally cannot refuse to testify, but in certain situations they have the right to refuse to answer a specific question. This applies to cases where answering could expose the witness or their immediate family to criminal or fiscal liability. This protection extends to the same group of individuals who are entitled to refuse to testify: spouses, ascendants, descendants, siblings, first-degree relatives, and persons related by adoption, guardianship, or wardship.

Refusing to answer a question does not constitute an admission of guilt, nor can it constitute grounds for imposing penalties on the parties. At the same time, neither legal provisions nor legal doctrine provide any guidance on the possibility of using this mechanism upon termination of a marriage, guardianship, care, or adoption. In practice, this may depend on the individual authority or court, should the decision be appealed.

Special protection is also provided to individuals bound by professional secrecy. They may refuse to answer a question if doing so would reveal legally protected information. This applies primarily to tax advisors, individuals employed by tax advisors or entities providing tax advisory services, as well as attorneys and legal counselors. The purpose of this measure is to protect the confidentiality of information entrusted to members of professions of public trust.

Before the hearing begins, the tax authority is obligated to inform the witness of their rights. This obligation is a manifestation of the principle of building public trust in the tax authorities and is intended to ensure that the witness is aware of their rights. At the same time, the authority should advise the witness of the legal liability for making false statements and the consequences that may result from providing false information.

Rules for taking evidence from witness statements.

The Act lacks any rules governing witness questioning. The regulations and legal doctrine suggest that the form may be either oral or written, but doubts arise regarding the latter. There is also no information on the procedure for conducting questioning. This leaves the authorities with considerable discretion. In addition to the authorities, the parties may also ask questions of witnesses. The regulations do not specify the extent to which a party may ask questions and provide explanations, hence the legal doctrine’s position that this is permissible at any stage of the questioning.

The Tax Ordinance does not specifically regulate the manner of conducting witness interviews. In practice, this means that tax authorities and courts often resort to solutions developed in other procedures. For example, as in civil proceedings, it is permissible to interview witnesses whose accounts contradict each other. Furthermore, case law has also accepted the possibility of confronting witnesses to clarify discrepancies in their testimony. However, if a witness resides outside of Poland, their interview may be conducted through a consul.

However, it’s important to remember that witness testimony is supplementary in tax proceedings. Tax authorities primarily use this evidence when the collected documentation – particularly tax records, accounting records, or other documents – does not allow for a clear determination of the facts and resolution of the case.

Fiscal secrecy

Fiscal secrecy is the exclusion of individual taxpayer, payer, and collector data contained in documentation submitted to the tax authority. It also covers the confidentiality of such data contained in documents held by the authority or information obtained by the authority about this data. The statutory prohibition on disclosing this type of information is intended to provide additional protection for fiscal secrecy, which is one of several secrets protected by law. The purpose of such measures is to protect individual privacy and safeguard the state’s interest. Only in special cases, for reasons of public interest, is it permissible to disclose this data to tax audits and tax authorities. Such measures are intended to protect the private interests of the person or organizational unit being audited. Expanding interpretations of provisions allowing for exceptions to the rule are also prohibited.

The scope of fiscal secrecy is very broad. It covers not only data contained in tax returns and other documents submitted by taxpayers, payers, and collectors, but also all information obtained by tax authorities in the course of performing their statutory duties.

Protection covers, among other things, information collected during inspections, tax proceedings, tax and customs audits, as well as proceedings concerning fiscal crimes and misdemeanors. Fiscal secrecy also covers data contained in tax authority documentation and information obtained from banks, other institutions, and entities cooperating with the tax administration.

The scope of protection also extends to data obtained through international exchange of tax information, double taxation procedures, risk analyses conducted by the National Revenue Administration, taxpayer cooperation programs, and investment agreements. This means that fiscal secrecy covers not only information provided directly by taxpayers, but also data collected by authorities from other sources and documentation created during ongoing proceedings.

In summary, fiscal secrecy covers not only information collected by tax authorities but also data regarding the sources of this information and how it is stored. The scope of this protection is very broad and is intended to ensure the security and confidentiality of taxpayers’ information provided to the tax administration.

This does not mean, however, that all data is strictly confidential. The legislator has provided exceptions that allow for the disclosure of certain information to a business’s contractors. This applies in particular to information about whether the taxpayer has submitted the required tax returns and documents, whether they have correctly reported the events subject to disclosure, and whether they have any tax arrears. In practice, this means that a contractor can obtain basic information that allows them to assess the business’s tax reliability and credibility.

Subjective scope

In addition to defining what information is covered by fiscal confidentiality, the legislator also specified the group of individuals obligated to maintain it. This obligation primarily rests with employees and officers of the National Revenue Administration, employees of the National Revenue Information Service, and other individuals involved in performing the duties of tax authorities.

Representatives of local government and government administration, members of local government appeal boards, persons undergoing internships and apprenticeships in tax authorities, as well as persons participating in specific tax proceedings or procedures for exchanging information with other countries are also obliged to maintain fiscal secrecy.

The list of entities covered by this obligation is broad and includes all individuals who, in connection with the performance of their duties or participation in proceedings, gain access to information protected by fiscal secrecy. The purpose of this solution is to ensure the security of taxpayer data and reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure.

Individuals who have access to information covered by fiscal secrecy are required to sign a written confidentiality agreement. Importantly, this obligation does not expire upon termination of employment, internship, apprenticeship, or performance of a specific function. This means that information protected by fiscal secrecy cannot be disclosed even after the termination of these relationships.

The obligation of confidentiality also applies to any person to whom such information has been lawfully disclosed. Disclosure is only permissible when permitted by law. Data subjects are an exception – they are not bound by the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of information relating to them.

The attitude of the tax authorities towards the witness’s representative

In practice, tax authorities do not allow the appointment of a proxy for a witness. They justify this by citing the lack of a clear legal basis in the Tax Ordinance. This position was also confirmed by the Commissioner for Human Rights.

This approach is supported by both case law and prevailing doctrine. It has been pointed out that the participation of a witness’s attorney could be contrary to the principle that tax proceedings are open only to the parties thereto.

Although there are some opinions in the literature supporting a witness’s right to be assisted by an attorney, this view remains decidedly minority. Consequently, it is difficult to expect the tax authority to grant such a request, and the chances of an administrative court changing this position also seem slim.

Artykuł Witness in Polish tax proceedings – obligation, right or risk? pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.