top of page
Search

Validation of the presidential elections in Poland


According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court determines the validity of the election of the President of the Republic of Poland,[1] while under the Act on the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (CoERPA) is responsible for examining electoral protests and determining the validity of elections.[2]

Despite these clear legal provisions, this issue is being questioned. Public statements are increasingly calling into question the CoERPA's status as a court,[3] which also undermines its authority to hear electoral protests and determine the validity of the 2025 presidential elections in Poland. Typically, it is the government — specifically, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice — who take the lead in questioning constitutional state bodies, such as the Supreme Court.

The government is publicly questioning the effectiveness of CoERPA's determination of election validity. They attempted to pass a law that would strip CoERPA of this authority. The prosecutor's office is also being used to challenge the eligibility of CoERPA judges to serve on court panels.

It should be noted that the CoERPA has previously ruled on the validity of Polish elections several times, including the 2019 and 2023 Sejm and Senate elections, the 2020 presidential election, the 2019 and 2024 European Parliament elections, and the 2023 referendum. The  CoERPA's rulings on the validity of these elections have never been challenged.

On 24 June 2025, a group of 28 Supreme Court judges published a statement saying that the CoERPA is not a court and cannot therefore perform the activities in the electoral process that belong exclusively to the Supreme Court.[4]

A similar statement was also made by a group of former presidents of the Constitutional Tribunal.[5]

By doing so, these individuals joined the attack on the Supreme Court, presenting what they claimed to be a thorough legal argument but which, in reality, replicated disinformative journalism. This proves either the bad faith or the lack of understanding of those who prepared the statement.[6]

It is worth briefly mentioning the basis on which the powers of the CoERPA are questioned.

Those opposing CoERPO cite judgments of international tribunals, but they omit a number of important issues. It's impossible not to notice the existence of several judgments by international courts, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which call into question the CoERPA's capacity as a court due to alleged irregularities in the process of appointing Polish judges and violation of the principle of judicial independence.[7] However, it is important to emphasise that these judgments do not directly affect the content of Polish law. They are of universally binding application, unlike, for example, the judgments of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. Judgements of international tribunals are addressed to states, not to citizens in general, and cannot replace or derogate from applicable law.

Judgments of international courts are only enforceable by the Polish state. This means that, until Polish law is amended in accordance with the procedure specified in the Constitution, these judgements do not affect the content of applicable law. The addressee of their decisions is the Republic of Poland, and their execution rests with the legislative authorities.

Consequently, the execution of international tribunals' judgements is carried out by the relevant state bodies, acting within their national (constitutional) competencies. This guarantees state influence over the manner of execution and the definition of limits of subordination.[8]

Firstly of all, the CoERPA was established by the Polish law – the Act on the Supreme Court[9] that was adopted on the basis of constitutional authorisation.[10] The CoERPA was granted the authority to hear election protests and determine the validity of elections.[11]

Until the legislature makes changes to the structure of the Supreme Court or the competences of its chambers, the CoERPA must protect the constitutional and political rights of citizens and the legal order of the Republic of Poland. The structure and jurisdiction of courts in the Republic of Poland are not defined by Supreme Court or international tribunal judgments, but are determined by statute pursuant to Article 176, Section 2 of the Constitution.[12] The Act on the Supreme Court establishes the CoERPA as a chamber of the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over electoral protests and the validity of elections.[13]

In other words, under current legislation, the CoERPA is a body authorised by the legislature to judicially safeguard constitutional rights in the field of elections. The cessation of these powers (for any reason other than changes to the applicable legal system) would be an action undertaken without legal basis, leading to the deprivation of constitutional entities' due legal protection. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that the case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR does not exempt other public authorities, including legislative and executive bodies, from the obligation to apply the provisions of the Electoral Code.

Regardless of the answer to the question of whether the CJEU and ECtHR would exceed their authority by ruling on the powers of the Supreme Court,  it should be emphasised that these judgments have no impact on the national legal reality until they are implemented by the competent national authorities. Therefore, the Supreme Court is a court and its judges are judges.[14]

Furthermore, it must be emphasised that the executive authorities have no power to assess the constitutional status of any court. This cannot be derived from the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland or international agreements to which the Republic of Poland is a party, nor from the rulings of international courts.

Moreover, the Supreme Court's competence to determine the validity of elections does not constitute the exercise of justice,[15] with which the right to a fair trial[16]  is associated. Considering electoral protests and adjudicating on the validity of the election of the President of the Republic of Poland are ‘other activities specified in the Constitution and statutes’.[17]

As such, they remain outside the scope of European affairs and, consequently, beyond the remit of the European Union and its courts. By the very nature of EU law, therefore, CJEU rulings can only have effect within the scope of competences transferred to the EU by the Republic of Poland, which do not include electoral matters.

The ECtHR's area of competence has also been limited to civil and criminal matters. It covers the right to a court as an emanation of human rights. However, this right does not extend to the political rights of citizens or political parties formed by citizens.[18] Therefore, the content of ECtHR rulings issued on the basis of individual complaints concerning the alleged violation of the right to a court in civil and criminal cases cannot affect the assessment of the CoERPA's competence to adjudicate in electoral cases.[19]

It should be noted that neither the CJEU nor the ECtHR has ever issued any ruling that would question the competence of the Supreme Court adjudicating in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs to hear electoral protests and rule on the validity of elections of the President or legislative bodies.

In summary, questioning the constitutional role of the Supreme Court's Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs lacks any legal basis. This destructive mechanism, which denies the status of judges and courts, is purely political and seeks to undermine the democratic legitimacy of the winner of the 2025 presidential election.

The culmination of these deliberations is that despite the obstacles placed by the government on 1 July 2025, the Supreme Court, convened in its entirety for the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber, and in the presence of the Chairman of the National Electoral Commission and the Prosecutor General, passed a resolution confirming the legitimacy of Karol Tadeusz Nawrocki's election as President of the Republic of Poland.[20]


[1] Article 129 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Journal of Laws 1997.78.483 of 1997.07.16).

[2] Article 26 (1) of the Act of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 622).

[6] The position of the Supreme Court  Spokesman regarding the statement of 28 Supreme Court judges of 24 June 2025, www.sn.pl/aktualnosci/SitePages/Wydarzenia.aspx?ItemSID=1100-0dc69815-3ade-42fa-bbb8-549c3c6969c5&ListName=Wydarzenia.

[7] ECtHR judgments: of 8 November 2021, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, applications no. 49868/19 and 57511/19; of 23 November 2023, Wałęsa v. Poland, application no. 50849/21.

[8] M.Muszyński, Rebellion of the ignorant, www.dorzeczy.pl/opinie/746829/mariusz-muszynski-bunt-nieukow.html.

[9] Act of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 622.

[10] Pursuant to Article 176 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland: ‘The structure and jurisdiction of courts and court proceedings shall be specified by statutes’.

[11] See footnote 2.

[12] See footnote 8.

[13] Article 3 and article 26 (1) of the Act on the Supreme Court.

[14] See footnote 11.

[15] referred to in Article 175 (1) of the Constitution.

[16] guaranteed by Article 45 (1) of the Constitution.

[17] referred to in Article 183 (2) of the Constitution.

[18] The resolutions of the Supreme Court of: 11 January 2023, I NSW 1237/23; 3 September 2024, I NSW 44/24.

[19] The resolution of the Supreme Court of 21 January 2025, I NSW 59/24, LEX nr 3818840; https://sip.lex.pl/#/jurisprudence/523912536/1?directHit=true&directHitQuery=I%20NSW%2059%2F24.

 

bottom of page