Minister Bodnar Urges Supreme Court to Act Contrary to Law in Presidential Election Ruling

Adobe Stock

Presidential elections, which have just taken place in Poland, were won by the candidate supported by the opposition. According to the law, the validity of the elections should be decided by the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court. However, the government is questioning the competence of this chamber, which could be interpreted as an attempt to obstruct the transfer of power to the newly elected president.

In the early morning of 2 June 2025, the National Electoral Commission officially announced the results of the Polish presidential election, declaring Karol Nawrocki as the victor. Pursuant to Article 321 of the Polish Electoral Code, this announcement initiated a 14-day period for the submission of electoral protests and a 30-day period for the Supreme Court to adjudicate the validity of the election, following the resolution of all such protests, in accordance with Article 324 of the Electoral Code. Under Article 26 § 1(2) of the Act on the Supreme Court, jurisdiction over this matter rests with the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court.

Notably, even prior to the official announcement of the election results, the Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar, urged the First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Manowska, to seek a means to “avoid controversy over the validity of the presidential election.” This ambiguous appeal appears to align with the government’s previously expressed view that the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber should be deprived of its constitutional competencies.

Minister Bodnar had made a more explicit statement to this effect shortly before the first round of the presidential election, in the context of the Supreme Court’s impending decision on the validity of a Senate by-election held on 16 March 2025 in a constituency covering part of the city of Kraków.

On 14 May, a statement published on the Ministry of Justice’s website effectively expressed the Minister’s intention to prompt the Supreme Court to act contrary to binding law. This position was predicated on several assertions...

Full text is available on the Rule of Law Observer - LINK