The Act of 23 January 2009 (so called Act on dezubekization) introduced amendments into two different acts which defines scheme of retirement benefits for officers of the Police, secret services, the Prison Guard and the State Fire Service and the retirement benefits for soldiers. New provisions reduced the level of retirement pensions for persons who served in communist state security services after 20 years since the communist regime collapsed and the democratic changes of 1989 have started. Pensions are reduced in each case on the same rules. They depends though on the character of organs in which they served and their responsibilities as well as on the fact that they received positive result in the verification procedure of officers, which took place in 1990. The preamble  of the amending Act states, among others, that officers of security services exercised their functions without incurring the risk of losing life or health, while enjoying the many material and legal privileges in return for consolidation of an inhuman system of authorities.

Provisions of the Act of 23 January 2009 were already subjected to the constitutional verification procedure. In the judgment of 24 February 2010, case no. K 6/09, the Constitutional Court stated though that they are in compliance with Polish Constitution.

In the amicus curiae brief, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights stated that the issues regulated by the Act of 23 January 2009 are of extremely complex and difficult nature. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights once again stressed that generally, as a principle, instruments for the reduction of pensions of former officers of the communist state security bodies are in accordance with constitutional principles, in particular, the rule of law and the principle of proportionality.

However, the specific solutions adopted by the Act of 23 January 2009 raises serious doubts about their compatibility with the Constitution. They create a disproportionate limitation, having even features of collective responsibility based on the principle of presumption of guilt. Detailed regulations seem rather to create instruments aimed at retribution than to withdraw privileges.

At the same time, in relation to the adopted solutions, far reaching questions arise with regard to the principle of equality. This is particularly evident in relation to the situation of applying the same solutions to the officers of the communist state security bodies, who passed in 1990 with a positive result the special procedure of verification and the officers who didn’t passed through such a procedure or didn’t passed it with the positive outcome.

In the conclusions presented in the amicus curiae brief, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights stated that in its opinion:
I. The motion instigating proceedings before the Constitutional Court in this case should be examined in its entirety. Not only because of differences with the subject of examination and invoked standards of a constitutional control with the ones in the case no. K 6/09 where the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 has been issued, but also, what is very important, to avoid the situation of déni de justice.

II. Police retirement is a kind of privilege. Deprived of this privilege may be only persons who in the course of their service didn’t fulfill their obligations in a faultless way.

III. Reduction of pension benefits of the security officers of the former communist state can only be a form of deprivation of the privilege, it can’t constitute a form of repression and revenge. Constructing such reduction scheme of pension, democratic state of law must comply with basic requirements and rules concerning the instruments of settlements with the communist past and to dismantle its heritage. Democratic state based on the rule of law must, in dismantling the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems, apply the procedural means of such a state. It cannot apply any other means, since it would then be no better than the totalitarian regime which is to be dismantled.

IV. The preamble to the Act of 23 January 2009 contains a normative content, and thus it may be subjected to examination of its compliance with the Polish Constitution and ratified international agreements. The preamble to the Act of 23 January 2009 in the contested area is inconsistent with the invoked standards of control.

V. Solutions adopted by the Act of 23 January 2009 raise serious concerns about their compliance with the principle of protection of acquired rights. This is especially noticeable when they are applied to former officers of the communist state security, who in 1990 successfully passed the verification procedure and served in services of the democratic state.

VI Regulations adopted by the Act of 23 January 2009 implement disproportionate restrictions in exercising constitutional rights and freedoms such as the right of property and the right of equal protection of property rights perceived together with the right to a social security. When examining proportionality of restrictions of vital importance remain:

1) existence of one of the criteria set out in Article 31 (3) of the Constitution, allowing to limit constitutional freedoms and rights;
2) proportionality of the implemented instruments to the aims expressed in the preamble to the Act and the effectiveness of these instruments, which also corresponds to the personal scope of the Act and its consistency with the preamble;
3) the need of individual applying instruments, i.e. using them in each individual case in proportion to the contribution of an individual to the functioning of the communist repressive system;
4) a height and a way of imposing reduction in pension benefits, and thus an issue of the nature of the adopted solutions;
5) moment of introduction of the instruments, i.e. 20 years after the fall of the communist system.

VII. The solutions adopted by the Law of 23 January 2009 violate the principle of equality and don’t guarantee their individual application. Infringements at this area particularly affect the officers, who in 1990 successfully passed the verification procedure, as well as the officers who had not performed the tasks of communist state political police. The violation of the principle of equality relates also to different treatment of persons who retired as police or secret services officers in relation to persons who retired as soldiers.

VIII. Some special procedural solutions, adopted by the Law of 23 January 2009, which differ from the general rules, result in breach of principle of proportionality. In the opinion of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, they may also violate the principle of equal protection for property rights.

For the reasons presented in the amicus curiae brief, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights reached the conclusion that the regulations introduced by the Act of 23 January 2009, as well as the preamble of the Act, still raise serious doubts as to their conformity with the Polish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.