Yes. Interception of communication is possible to the extent available to national authorities involved in criminal proceedings in regard to the most serious offences.
The Polish implementation of the EIO Directive provides for the possibility to issue/execute the EIO relating to: a) procedural interception (ordered by a court on a request of a prosecutor during the preparatory proceedings), but also to b) so-called “operational measures”, including, operational interception (ordered by a court on a request of the Police, or other LEA after a consent of a prosecutor, usually before the institution of the preparatory proceedings).
EIO Directive and the MLA 2000 Convention:
Procedural interception:
Interception of telecommunication is allowed in Polish jurisdiction upon the request of issuing state, in accordance with Article 237 paragraph 3-4 of the CPC and in the light of Article 241 of the CPC, only when the ongoing proceedings or a justified concern as to the possibility of a new criminal offence concern:
1) homicide;
2) causing a danger to the public or causing a catastrophe;
3) human trafficking;
4) abduction of a person;
5) ransom extortion;
6) hijacking of an aircraft or ship;
7) robbery, robbery with violence, or extortion by force;
8) attempt against the sovereignty or independence of the State;
9) attempt against the constitutional order of the State or against its supreme bodies, or against a unit of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland;
10) espionage or disclosure of classified information with the clause "secret" or "top secret";
11) amassing weapons, explosives or radioactive materials;
12) counterfeiting and circulating counterfeit monies, payment means or instruments, or tradable documents entitling to receive a cash amount, commodity, cargo, or in-kind prize, or tradable documents providing for an obligation of capital contribution, contribution of interest, share in profits or statement of interest in a company;
12a) the forgery or modification of invoices or the use of invoices forged or modified within the scope of factual circumstances that might influence the determination of the amount of the public-law liabilities or their refund, or the refund of other tax liabilities, and the issuance and use of invoices certifying false information concerning factual circumstances that might influence the determination of the amount of the public liabilities or their refund, or the refund of other tax liabilities;
13) manufacturing, processing, trading, and smuggling drugs, precursors, substitutes, and psychotropic substances;
14) organised crime group;
15) property of significant value;
16) use of violence or unlawful threats in connection with criminal proceedings;
16a) giving false testimony and the presentation of a false opinion, expert opinion or translation by an expert witness, qualified expert, or translator;
16b) a false accusation of a criminal offence, fiscal offence, or fiscal delinquency against another person;
16c) producing false evidence or taking other deceptive actions directing prosecution for a crime, fiscal offence, or fiscal delinquency against another person, or taking such actions in the course of the proceedings;
16d) concealing evidence demonstrating the innocence of a person suspected of committing a criminal offence, fiscal offence, or fiscal delinquency;
16e) notifying a prosecution body of a criminal offence or fiscal offence that has not been committed;
16f) acting as an accessory after the fact;
16g) failure to report a criminal offence;
17) bribery and influence peddling;
18) procurement or facilitation of prostitution;
19) criminal offences defined in Chapter XVI of the Act of 6 June 1997 - the Criminal Code (Journal of Laws of 2020, items 1444 and 1517), as well as in Articles 5 to 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, drawn up in Rome on 17 July 1998 (Journal of Laws of 2003, item 708 and of 2018, item 1753), hereinafter referred to as "Rome Statute".
The surveillance and recording of the content of telephone conversations and interception of other forms of telecommunication shall also be allowed for the purpose of revealing property at risk of forfeiture.
Surveillance and recording of the contents of telephone conversations and interception of other forms of telecommunication shall be permitted with regard to a suspected person, the accused, and with regard to the victim or another person whom the suspect/accused may contact or who might be connected with the perpetrator or with an imminent criminal offence.
The surveillance and recording of telephone conversations and interception of other forms of telecommunication may be carried out for a period not exceeding 3 months, with a possibility of extension, in particularly justified cases, for a period no longer than further 3 months.
Only the EIO Directive:
Operational interception:
This type of interception is regulated by competence laws of individual services (Police/other LEA) and it is allowed in relation to the most serious crimes (see above) when other measures have proved ineffective or will be of no use. It can be requested by the Police/other LEA according to their domestic competence and ordered by the circuit court after the consent of the Prosecutor General or the circuit prosecutor. The surveillance and recording of telephone conversations and interception of other forms of telecommunication may be carried out for a period not exceeding 3 months, with a possibility of extension, in particularly justified cases, for a period no longer than further 3 months. In exceptional situations the circuit court has the possibility to extend this period to 12 months.
According to the Article 241 of the CPC, the above indicated provisions shall apply respectively to the surveillance and recording, by technical means, of the content of other conversation or information transmissions, including e-mail correspondence.