{"id":12495,"date":"2026-05-08T10:35:09","date_gmt":"2026-05-08T08:35:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/do-rzeczy-komentarz-partnera-zarzadzajacego-kancelarii-w-artykule-poswieconym-krajowemu-rejestrowi-oznakowanych-psow-i-kotow-kropik\/"},"modified":"2026-05-31T18:35:17","modified_gmt":"2026-05-31T16:35:17","slug":"do-rzeczy-commentary-by-the-firms-managing-partner-in-an-article-on-the-national-register-of-marked-dogs-and-cats-kropik","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/do-rzeczy-commentary-by-the-firms-managing-partner-in-an-article-on-the-national-register-of-marked-dogs-and-cats-kropik\/","title":{"rendered":"Do Rzeczy: Commentary by the Firm’s Managing Partner in an Article on the National Register of Marked Dogs and Cats – KROPiK"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
In mid-April 2026, the Sejm passed the Act on the National Register of Marked Dogs and Cats – KROPiK. The underlying objective is sound: mandatory animal microchipping and a centralised database. However, behind the noble aim lie serious legal deficiencies.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Do Rzeczy published an article entitled “KROPiK Criticised in the Senate: Serious Constitutional Flaws”, featuring commentary from the Managing Partner of Jab\u0142o\u0144ski Ko\u017ami\u0144ski & Partners, Dr Krzysztof Ko\u017ami\u0144ski, Associate Professor at the University of Warsaw. In our expert’s view, the Act is defective as a matter of legislative drafting – and on multiple levels simultaneously. It attracted over 30 critical observations. Our expert identifies four key shortcomings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Breach of constitutional principles<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 the Act conflicts with several fundamental principles of the Polish Constitution.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Incompatibility with EU law<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 on 28 April, the European Parliament adopted a regulation directly applicable in Poland; in its current form, the Act may be incompatible with that regulation and expose Poland to liability before international bodies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Defective legislative procedure<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 the regulatory impact assessment raises serious concerns: the data used are selective, incomplete, and unreliable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Unrealistic calculations<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 the financial estimates and underlying assumptions bear no relation to market realities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
And one further point: the costs will be borne by pet owners. In a country where well-functioning databases have existed for 25 years and provide their services free of charge, questions about the rationale and proportionality of this regulation are entirely justified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/JKLAW_8.05-1024x1024.png\")
<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"