NIK challenges TVP. The body has reached the arguments that answer the accountants’ claims. There is a noted statement: “When conducting the audit, the Supreme Court did not consider TVP’s public, non-profit status as a broadcaster pursuing a public mission, especially the universality and continuity of access to media services.”
The evaluation of how TVP fulfills its public mission, including how resources are financed and spent, falls under the jurisdiction of another state organ: the National Broadcasting Council.
TVP remains an entity with entrepreneurial status that carries out business activities. Yet, in light of the law, it is markedly distinct from private-owned broadcasters, and particularly from other Polish TV channels. The simple economic calculation criterion cannot be used to label expenditures, investments, or losses as mismanagement, imprudence, or unreliability unless they are tied to the company’s public mission tasks.
– TVP emphasizes.
First, the state audit conducted by the Supreme Audit Office must respect the principle of independence for public radio and television, including editorial independence and institutional autonomy.
Allegations of the Supreme Audit Office
NIK accuses TVP of launching investment projects without ensuring sustainable, long-term financing. TVP argues that the Chamber has no justified objection to the lack of certainty regarding total financing for an investment planned for 2027, the year of its launch.
The objection to construction investments included in the approved plan, amounting to about 10%, is not permissible. TVP contends the business and economic assessment by the Supreme Audit Office is incorrect and selective; comparing the value of a long-term investment with a one-year plan is flawed. It is permissible for enterprises with a public mission to incur expenditures on fixed assets without tying them strictly to annual capital formation, spreading equipment costs over several years rather than concentrating them in a single year.
– We’ll find out.
Co-financing of Polish and foreign media
NIK also accused TVP of producing programs for the Polish community and Poles abroad and of broadcasting too many paid programs on TVP World. The ministry of foreign affairs funding, as alleged by the Supreme Court, was linked to disseminating the program to audiences abroad, while the court argued that the state budget can fund creation, not distribution. TVP counters that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the law, offering a literal view of Article 25, Section 4 of the Broadcasting Act, whereas the correct reading should include systemic considerations, recognizing that making a program includes its distribution.
Co-financing of TVP Vilnius from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NIK notes that TVP sought and received funding from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2021 exceeding the costs covered by that ministry’s budget. TVP explains that after recording all revenues for TVP Wilno, which formed the basis for royalties, an attachment could no longer be prepared. Transfers between accounts were accepted in the annual report, and royalties were counted within the subsidy. The watchdog contends that funding exceeded the costs of producing the “Polonia Reports” program, which did not align with the ministry’s agreement protocol.
TVP counters that the agreement protocol is a planning document subject to verification and further agreements with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during implementation.
Contrary to the audit’s conclusions, TVP notes that among 22 planned reports, 11 were completed and another was completed in consultation with the ministry, compared to the plan for the Polish diaspora report.
– TVP explains.
Dancing PGE Narodowy
Additionally, the Supreme Audit Office questioned two licenses bought in 2022 for a Gala French Tour concert and for the Roztańczony PGE Narodowy, deeming the process improper. In preparing to register these concerts, TVP found it more profitable to bypass the internal production model and purchase a ready-made broadcast license. This affected the timing of market information applications, which were submitted late. In these circumstances, the omission was procedural and did not harm the company’s interests.
– TVP explains.
The Supreme Court also raised concerns about the contract performance of Mel C and the Black Eyed Peas for the New Year’s Eve program. NIK described the approach as economically risky and costly in securing a major foreign star for the 2022/2023 broadcast. The perceived unfairness of Telewizja Polska SA’s procedure was reinforced by difficulties in collecting a contractual penalty for a non-fulfillment by a previously contracted main performer. TVP argues that the situation was more nuanced and that settlement discussions were a strategic step, with court action still possible.
– TVP insures.
From the outset, the company arranged for two foreign stars to participate in the New Year’s Eve concert. Mel C was not the sole foreign participant; efforts began early to secure two international talents. The involvement of the Black Eyed Peas was not a consequence of Melanie C’s withdrawal. It remains unclear on what grounds inspectors concluded differently. When the contract with the Black Eyed Peas was concluded, TVP did not know Melanie C would fail to fulfill hers. Difficulties in enforcing the contractual penalty for Melanie C should not affect TVP’s actions related to the Black Eyed Peas contract, which saw the band perform and fulfill its obligations.
– TVP emphasizes.
ed