Poland's government has come under fire for effectively legalizing controversial spyware following a European Court ruling that condemned the country's surveillance practices—contradicting campaign promises to end abuse of tools like Pegasus under the previous administration.
Rather than implementing comprehensive reform after the European Court of Human Rights found Poland violated fundamental rights in May 2024, Donald Tusk's coalition opted for procedural changes that critics say legitimize the very surveillance apparatus they once condemned.
The new regulations, introduced through administrative measures rather than substantive legislation, now require authorities to specify which surveillance tool they plan to use when seeking court approval. But according to legal analysis from Polish civil liberties groups, this represents "procedural change, not systemic reform."
The concern centers on Poland's extraordinarily high approval rate for surveillance requests. In 2024, authorities sought permission to monitor 5,234 people. Courts denied just 35 requests—a rejection rate of less than one percent.
"In Poland, as across Central Europe, history is never far from the surface—and neither is the memory of occupation," said legal experts critical of the reforms. The country's experience under communist-era surveillance makes the issue particularly sensitive for Polish society.
The European Court ruling in May 2024 found that Poland's judicial oversight of surveillance was "illusory" and that citizens lacked meaningful protection. Judges noted that people subjected to surveillance remain unaware they are being monitored and have no recourse—unless they are prosecuted for crimes and surveillance evidence is disclosed in court proceedings.
More troubling for civil liberties advocates, a comprehensive reform package was shelved. That legislation would have introduced the concept of "covert interference"—what critics describe as legalization of sophisticated surveillance devices dressed up as protective reform.
The controversy represents a familiar pattern across European democracies: governments that criticize surveillance powers while in opposition often maintain or expand those same capabilities once in office. Tusk's Civic Coalition made dismantling the previous Law and Justice (PiS) government's surveillance apparatus a campaign cornerstone.
Under the PiS government, Pegasus spyware—developed by Israeli firm NSO Group—was allegedly used to target opposition politicians, lawyers, and journalists. The scandal became a major political issue in Poland's 2023 election campaign.
Yet faced with governing responsibilities and security arguments from intelligence services, the new administration has taken a markedly different approach from its campaign rhetoric. The procedural adjustments allow continued use of invasive surveillance tools while providing legal cover that was previously absent.
Polish civil society organizations have warned that the changes effectively normalize mass surveillance rather than constraining it. With courts approving virtually all requests and citizens having no notification or appeal mechanisms, the European Court's concerns about illusory oversight remain unaddressed.
The situation in Warsaw reflects broader tensions across the European Union over balancing security needs with privacy rights. Poland, as a front-line NATO member acutely aware of Russian hybrid warfare threats, faces particular pressure to maintain robust intelligence capabilities.
But for many Poles who lived through communist surveillance or inherited those memories, the issue transcends typical security-versus-privacy debates. The normalization of surveillance powers—regardless of which party wields them—strikes at fundamental questions about Poland's democratic character three decades after the Solidarity movement's triumph.
Opposition politicians and legal experts are now calling for genuine reform that includes notification mechanisms for surveillance targets, meaningful judicial review with substantive denial rates, and sunset provisions requiring regular parliamentary reauthorization of surveillance powers.
The government has not announced plans to revisit the issue, despite mounting criticism from civil liberties groups and the continuing gap between Poland's surveillance regime and European human rights standards.
