The need for the functioning of immunity should be weigh up according both the system benefits which it provides and risks, and various pathologies or abuse. A balanced view of the benefits and vices for the functioning of public authorities requires reflection from the point of view of historical experiences and current, nowadays problems. It seems to be important prognostic aspect of possible organizational disruption for the amendment of regulations in this sphere. Today, we can not specify a uniform trend in European parliaments, which would prove that there is an authentic need to limit immunities. Journalistic comments appear sometimes in simplifying the problem of waive the Member’s immunity. However it is important to notice that immunity may not be waived in all circumstances, in every dimension, but only in particular, specific case. The problem of immunity is accompanied by many myths that are the source of inspiration for politicians and journalists calling for its total elimination. One of the myths is based on description of immunity only as a privilege. In the light of the Polish Constitution, system of the protection of parliamentarians is built on two immunities (absolute and relative), and the privilege of immunity. Parliamentarians in most countries are entitled to protection from criminal prosecution, but generally it does not extend to the realm of civil law. In Poland we can see the limitation of protection of the individual rights, guaranteed by Constitution, in situation of hold a parliamentarian to account for the infringement of the rights of any third parties, because is required endorsement of the Chamber, in which he sits. Furthermore, the operation of formal immunity causes some inconvenience not only for citizens but also from the point of view of the proper functioning of the Sejm and the Senate. It also entails discomfort for the parliamentarians, who are involved in various situations, being of excessive interest from the media.