Polish MP Zbigniew Ziobro, absent from the country, may be subject to a European Arrest Warrant; prosecutors outline steps, while his lawyer insists he has not hidden.
European Arrest Warrant and International Search
Experts note that because Ziobro is not in Poland, prosecutors must seek a temporary arrest order to pursue further actions. The next steps are to issue an international arrest notice and apply to the District Court for a European Arrest Warrant.
International search can be implemented under the European Arrest Warrant framework covering the EU and via Interpol, which covers more than 190 countries, according to prosecutor General Anna Adamiak. These measures are meant to compel Ziobro, a member of parliament, to appear for questioning. Only after that will the prosecutor decide whether to request a temporary arrest of up to three months. The court must also approve the request.
Hungarian Response and Possible Refusal
Ziobro did not apply for political asylum in Hungary, but a Hungarian court could still consider an ENA request or delay its processing. According to the Hungarian Bar Association president, a country may refuse to execute an order that would violate human rights. In this case, the Hungarian court could refuse, similar to the Marcin Romanowski case.
Experts point out that 2026 parliamentary elections will be held in Hungary, potentially ending the long‑running government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Medical Claims and Lawyer’s Statement
Lawyer Bartosz Lewandowski wrote on X that Ziobro has been living abroad for a month because he underwent extensive cancer surgery and requires ongoing oncology care. He said investigators and the public know this. In a letter to the National Prosecutor Office, he provided the client’s exact address and requested that operations be carried out through international cooperation or consular services, which prosecutors can do without difficulty.
Lewandowski stressed that there is no hiding, as the prosecutor already has full information on Ziobro’s location and has received a public‑lawyer request to conduct the necessary procedure. He also noted that the client and his lawyers had no access to a medical expert opinion issued during proceedings without patient examination; the opinion only indicated that the MP could participate in the procedure, with no mention of medical obstacles that could prevent his detention.