## Facts

- Poland’s Constitution establishes the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT) as a constitutional body responsible for safeguarding freedom of speech, the right to information, and the public interest in radio and television.
- Following a change in political majority after national elections, Parliament enacted a statute reorganizing state competencies in communications and broadcasting.
- The statute restructured KRRiT’s composition and functioning, including shortening sitting members’ terms and altering leadership arrangements.
- The statute gave the President authority to appoint and dismiss KRRiT’s Chair and removed KRRiT’s internal competence to dismiss its Chair.
- The statute added a KRRiT task described as “initiating and undertaking actions for the protection of journalistic ethics.”
- The statute created preferential licensing renewal conditions for “social broadcasters.”
- Key provisions were adopted and brought into force on an accelerated timetable with minimal notice, producing a risk of temporary interruption in KRRiT’s operation.
- The Commissioner for Citizens’ Rights and groups of legislators filed abstract constitutional review petitions challenging both specific provisions and aspects of the statute as a whole.

## Issues

1. Whether expedited enactment and alleged departures from constitutionally significant legislative procedures violated rule-of-law and legality requirements.
2. Whether assigning KRRiT a mandate to “protect journalistic ethics” was sufficiently definite and compatible with freedom of expression and the right to information.
3. Whether presidential appointment and dismissal of KRRiT’s Chair conformed to constitutional limits on presidential powers, including countersignature requirements, and to separation of powers.
4. Whether eliminating KRRiT’s internal power to dismiss its Chair violated KRRiT’s constitutional status and institutional independence.
5. Whether preferential licensing renewal rules for “social broadcasters” violated equality, social market economy principles, and equal protection of property-related interests.
6. Whether immediate entry into force that shortened incumbents’ terms and disrupted KRRiT’s functioning violated constitutional requirements of legal certainty and continuity of constitutional organs.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Tribunal held that multiple challenged provisions were unconstitutional (some in specified scope) and invalidated them, while leaving other portions in force.
- The Tribunal found procedural unconstitutionality where the accelerated legislative path and deviations from required deliberative steps undermined constitutionally relevant legislative safeguards.
- The Tribunal held unconstitutional, in part, the provision assigning KRRiT responsibility for “protection of journalistic ethics,” due to insufficient precision and risk of excessive interference with expressive freedoms.
- The Tribunal held unconstitutional, in part, the statutory design granting the President appointment/dismissal authority over KRRiT’s Chair because it was not properly aligned with the constitutional framework governing presidential acts and separation of powers.
- The Tribunal held unconstitutional, in part, the removal of KRRiT’s internal competence to dismiss its Chair as inconsistent with KRRiT’s autonomy as a constitutional collegial body.
- The Tribunal held unconstitutional the abrupt shortening of sitting members’ terms and the resulting interruption risk to the functioning of a constitutional organ.
- The Tribunal held unconstitutional, in part, the preferential licensing renewal treatment for “social broadcasters” to the extent it created unjustified unequal treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Rule-of-law and legality requirements constrain not only substantive outcomes but also legislative procedure when procedural rules implement constitutional guarantees of deliberation and transparency.
- Constitutional organs designed to safeguard expressive freedoms require institutional independence; statutory changes may not function as ad hoc political “resetting” of membership mid-term.
- Restrictions affecting freedom of expression and information must be statutory, sufficiently definite, and structured to prevent uncontrolled administrative discretion that could chill speech.
- Presidential competences must fit the constitutional allocation of powers, including applicable countersignature rules and separation-of-powers limits.
- A collegial constitutional body must retain meaningful internal governance mechanisms consistent with its constitutional role; external control mechanisms cannot eliminate internal accountability without constitutional basis.
- Equality principles permit differentiated treatment only when justified by legitimate aims and proportional means; licensing advantages affecting competition and protected interests require a clear constitutional justification.
- Legal certainty includes reasonable notice and continuity safeguards; immediate effectiveness that disables a constitutional body’s operation violates constitutional continuity and rule-of-law requirements.

## Conclusion

The Tribunal invalidated key parts of a statute restructuring the broadcasting regulator, holding that expedited enactment and several substantive changes unlawfully impaired procedural legality, expressive freedoms, equality, and the constitutionally protected independence and continuity of KRRiT.


Modifications to the Composition & Functioning of the Nat’l Broad. Council (K 4/06) (Pol. Const. Trib. 2006)