In Poland, the Supreme Court faced a pivotal ruling on an extraordinary complaint linked to the 2001 parliamentary elections and the PSL party’s financial records.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed an unusual petition alleging that the PSL lost more than 9 million zlotys after the PKW, the National Electoral Commission, rejected reports tied to the 2001 parliamentary voting. The complaint, filed years earlier by the Human Rights Commissioner, challenged the Warsaw Court of Appeal’s stance in this matter.
The case illustrates a misunderstanding of how an extraordinary complaint operates. It is a special remedy designed to correct final court decisions that suffer significant legal flaws, not a substitute for full reexamination of a case.
Judge Joanna Lemańska, who chairs the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Audit and Public Affairs Chamber, explained the ruling. She noted that extraordinary proceedings cannot replace body scrutiny or overturn a specific decision, highlighting the separate roles within the judicial system.
At the same time, she observed that a political party holds a public-law status as part of the political framework, which warrants a distinct standard when evaluating potential property infringements.
The Ombudsman’s extraordinary complaint, represented by Marcin Wiącek, concerned the Warsaw Court of Appeal’s August 11, 2009 decision, which upheld the forfeiture of PSL benefits exceeding 9.422 million zlotys. In 2002, the National Electoral Commission had rejected two PSL reports covering party income, expenditures, and financial obligations related to the 2001 elections, along with the sources and terms of obtaining funds, including bank loans and the electoral fund’s use in 2001.
Among the sanctions, the PKW had also sought a verdict forfeiting PSL benefits from the Election Commission. In November 2008, the court denied this request, finding that the Electoral Act provisions in force at the time allowed pooling resources from the Election Fund and the Election Commission in a single bank account. Nevertheless, the court also noted that the provisions governing these issues, especially before the July 2002 amendment, were unclear, sloppy, and did not meet legal standards.
Following the PKW’s appeal, the Warsaw Court of Appeal altered the initial ruling and, by its decision on August 11, 2009, declared the forfeiture of the PSL’s financial advantage. The Ombudsman argued that in 2001 there was no explicit legal requirement to open two separate bank accounts for the party’s Election Fund and Election Commission.
The conduct of the proceedings and the final outcome should provide those involved with a clear sense of how applicable laws are interpreted and applied. The PSL, according to the Ombudsman, did not have such assurance.
Additionally, the Ombudsman noted that the rejection of the PSL’s annual accounts led to three sanctions by the PKW, including a loss of 75 percent of the party’s vote in 2001 and a 30 percent subsidy due in 2002. The forfeiture of benefits thus represented a third consecutive sanction. The Ombudsman argued that this sequence could violate the constitutional prohibition on multiple punishments for the same act.
In justification of the ruling, Judge Lemańska stated that the 2001 electoral-law provisions did not render the interpretation doubtful and that the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized the distinction between the Election Commission fund, which is tied to the election period, and the party’s electoral fund, which operates under broader party-law provisions and is permanent in nature.
The Supreme Court rejected the complainant’s view that the forfeiture function is purely punitive. It is usually a remedy tied to an existing obligation to compensate for an advantage obtained in breach of the law. The notion of multiple punishments for the same act was not supported in this case, as the court found no grounds to treat the sanction as solely punitive.
The extraordinary complaint mechanism was introduced by a law that took effect in April 2018, with older judgments extended until early April 2024. Complaints are handled within the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber, and may be filed by the Attorney General, the Commissioner for Citizens’ Rights, and other bodies within their jurisdiction, such as the Financial Ombudsman or the Children’s Ombudsman, among others. [citation: wPolityce]
The discussion surrounding this ruling sheds light on how Poland handles the balance between political party funding, electoral law, and the protection of civil rights within the judiciary. It also underscores the careful calibration between retribution and remedy in cases involving political actors and public funds. [citation: wPolityce]
Additional context on related political developments and coalition dynamics can be found in contemporary analyses. [citation: wPolityce]