Interesting. Do you have a source for that? "Parliamentary immunity in Poland
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Polish parliamentarians (Deputies to the Sejm and Senators) enjoy a broad set of immunity privileges, i.e. an indemnity (called "material immunity", in Polish "immunitet materialny") and three immunities that may be jointly called "inviolability". There are no differences in application of all forms of immunity to members of the Sejm and the Senate.
Just as in many contemporary democracies, the Polish parliamentary immunity is not perceived as a personal privilege of a parliamentarian, but as a safeguard of independence of Members of Parliament (MPs) while performing their parliamentary duties and, in consequence, as an important guarantee of proper functioning of the Sejm and the Senate. On the other hand the immunity is considered as an exception to the constitutional principle of equality, since it affords parliamentarians a privileged legal status compared to other citizens. Thus jurisprudence and scholars call for a strict interpretation of the scope of all forms of immunity. However, in practice this guideline is not always followed.
Material immunity ensures protection of all activities that Deputies and Senators perform within the scope of the parliamentary functions. For such activities MPs may only be held accountable before the Sejm or, respectively, the Senate, unless while performing such activities, the MP "has infringed the rights of third parties". In the latter case a Deputy or a Senator may be brought to a court (of any kind) only upon consent of the Sejm or the Senate.
An important feature of material immunity is its "permanence”, meaning that the protection does not end on the day of expiry of parliamentary mandate, but in fact lasts until the end of life of a person who in the past served as an MP.
The other three forms of immunity ("the privileges of inviolability) protect MPs’ safety while exercising the mandate, allowing them to perform their function freely, i.e. without threats of any kind of deprivation of liberty or imposing criminal proceedings. The most important one, called formal immunity (in Polish "immunitet formalny"), encompasses a prohibition of bringing MPs to criminal accountability without the consent of the Sejm or the Senate. A similar legal solution (called in Polish "nietykalność") applies to prohibition of detaining or arresting MPs without a consent of the respective parliamentary chamber. The set of privileges of inviolability is supplemented with a possibility of Sejm’s or Senate’s requests to suspend criminal proceedings instituted against a person before the day of his election as Deputy or Senator.
All forms of inviolability privileges are temporal, since the protection ends on the day of expiry of MPs’ mandate. The decision on whether to protect them rests on the will of the respective chamber, since two former privileges can be waived and the latter one defended. An important solution concerning formal immunity is that an MP may grant his/her consent to be brought to criminal accountability. In such cases no waiver is necessary.
Key procedural issues concerning parliamentary immunity are determined in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Apart from the Constitution a legal act which clarifies the scope of immunity and sets out detailed procedural rules is a statute – the Act of 9th May 1996 on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator. Finally, immunities are to some extent covered by the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Sejm and the Rules and Regulations of the Senate."
Parliamentary immunity in Poland It's a little tricky, since this comes from the constitutional law of a Napoleonic Code state, and something may get lost in translation, but all of this smells bad. The Polish Sejm, (It's lower house of the legislature), could have asserted the privilege for its members IF the crime was committed before the election, (I can't tell whether this was when first elected, or last elected.) Rather than do that, the speaker of the lower house revoked the members election certificates in what looks like a carefully choreographed plan to litigate all issues of the pardon, and legislative immunity to play political hardball. All of this from a governing coalition of three parties with a slim majority aligned against the plurality winner.