Freedom of association

According to the Civil Society Organisation (CSO) representatives with whom the delegation met, there were no legal barriers to setting up an organisation, although they felt administrative procedures could be improved. However, a majority expressed concerns that the overall environment for democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights risked negatively affecting them.

There were concerns that the recent creation of a new institute responsible for awarding all public funds [to organisations involved in human rights and watchdog activities] could lead to interference or self-censorship by CSOs. The National Institute of Freedom – Centre for Civil Society Development (Narodowy Instytut Wolności - Centrum Rozwoju Społeczeństwa Obywatelskiego) is a new central body under the Prime Minister’s Office charged with administering public funding to CSOs. According to the latter, rules introduced for the awarding of funding were unclear. A watchdog reported several cases where CSOs selected during the awarding process did not receive any funds, and vice versa.

Some contended that CSOs that steered clear of criticising government policies were likely to maintain access to funding and CSOs working on unpopular issues such as gender equality, LGTBI rights, and migration experienced cuts in funding. Other CSOs felt that it was within the government’s right to choose its priorities, and maintained that this was a positive development that allowed many funds to be distributed to small local organisations with no “political agenda”. They also pointed out that the amount of available funds had tripled.

It was feared that the new institute would also act as an advisory body for drafting legislation; however, it was unclear how this would function. Members of the institute’s opinion-issuing body, Council of the National Freedom Institute, were most often appointed by the government. Because of this, some CSOs had raised questions regarding representation and the criteria for appointment. They were disappointed that the institute had accepted that decisions regarding control of CSOs could be taken within a period of 24 hours, meaning that raids could take place at any time.

In addition, there had been campaigns to discredit CSOs in the media, such as accusations of financial impropriety against some organisations. As a result, some CSOs had lost the support of local authorities and others had received threats. CSOs and some judges and prosecutors’ associations were accused of being partisan. Some participants believed that the threat to freedom of association came from political polarisation, stating that some CSOs promoted a liberal “ideology” and criticised the government for issues that already existed previously. Others disagreed and felt that the threat to civil rights had reached an unprecedented critical level that justified stronger criticism. For the latter, it was alarming that the Ombudsman’s funding had been severely cut following interventions to promote civil rights.

All CSOs agreed that there was a need to consult CSOs more on legislation and make space for more peaceful dialogue. Plans had reportedly been made to change the law on the nonprofit sector without informing CSOs about the content or timing of the proposal. CSOs may be consulted on the final proposal with short deadlines to provide their feedback, but they were unable to provide meaningful input on the scope of the proposal.

According to the Polish officials with whom the EESC delegation met, the authorities did not interfere in freedom of association. They could only refuse to acknowledge registration if forms were incomplete. Organisations were required to provide annual reports to supervisory mechanisms. Such reports did not amount to excessive questioning about CSOs’ finances, and ministry representatives insisted that they only asked for additional information concerning financial settlement issues.