On 11 January 2024, the Supreme Court, sitting in open session as a full Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber, adopted a resolution confirming the validity of the elections to the Sejm and the Senat of the Republic of Poland held on 15 October 2023.
Prior to adopting the resolution, the Supreme Court reviewed the protocol on the result of the parliamentary elections and the report on the parliamentary elections submitted by the National Electoral Commission (PKW) of 31 October 2023 as well as the opinions issued by the Supreme Court following the examination of the elections protests.
In the Supreme Court special repertory, a total of 1177 cases arising from the lodging of elections protests were registered. In 14 cases, the Supreme Court issued opinions on the merits of the charges raised in the protests and concluded that they did not affect the result of the elections, with regard to 11 cases it found the charges to be unfounded, and in 2 cases the proceedings were discontinued. Whereas in 1150 cases, the Supreme Court left the protests without further proceedings, due to the fact that they did not meet the formal requirements, including, in particular, the lack of the protesting person's signature, failure to indicate an address of residence or the PESEL number, failure to state a request concerning the validity of the election, the protest being lodged by an unauthorised entity, exceeding the time limit for lodging a protest, as well as due to the defective formulation of the protest charges or the lack of justification for them.
The Supreme Court found the following charges of the election protests to be well founded:
- the charge of failure to record voters who voted on the basis of a voting certificate in the voting record prepared by the local electoral commission (PEC) (I NSW 114/23);
- the charge of refusal to issue a voting card due to failure to verify the fact of adding the voter to the registry of voters (I NSW 355/23);
- the charge of failure to include the protestant in the National Registry of Voters due to an error in the system (I NSW 412/23);
- the charge of failure to attach a voting card to the registry of voters after the voter submitted a voting card to the PEC (I NSW 477/23);
- the charge of taking voting cards to other premises by members of the PEC when counting them (I NSW 515/23);
- the charge that a person of trust was not allowed to enter the polling station (I NSW 550/23);
- the charge of placing the signature of another person in the space reserved for the signature of the protesting person (I NSW 586/23, I NSW 808/23);
- the charge of being asked by a member of the PEC whether the person lodging the protest wished to receive all the voting cards (I NSW 690/23);
- the charge that members of two PECs misinformed voters that it was impossible to vote for candidates from the election committee Polska Jest Jedna due to invalidation of registration of the list of candidates of this committee and removal of candidates from this list, while the correct information should have referred to the removal of candidates of another election committee, which was dissolved two days before the elections (I NSW 712/23);
- the charge of the lack of seals and stamps on the ballot box (I NSW 985/23);
- the charge of issuing unsealed voting cards to the voter (I NSW 1184/23);
- the charge of not sealing the ballot box before the opening of the polling station, as well as the arrangement of voting conditions in the polling station that did not ensure secrecy of voting (I NSW 1203/23).
The Supreme Court found the following charges of the election protests to be unfounded:
- the charge of deprivation of the right to vote via post for a voter hospitalised in the United Kingdom (I NSW 99/23);
- the charge of instructing voters by persons at the polling station not to make deletions on their voting cards, and the charge of failure to issue a voting card in the election for the Senate (I NSW 408/23);
- the charge of being asked how many voting cards the voter want to receive (I NSW 308/23, I NSW 804/23, I NSW 486/12);
- the charge of incorrect confirmation of receipt of voting cards, i.e. confirmation of receipt of all cards with one signature (I NSW 538/23);
- the charge of the absence of some members of the PEC during the recount of the voting cards before the beginning of the poll and during the stamping of the cards and determining the election results, as well as the denial to the person of trust of the right to make comments on the voting record and the obstruction of his observation of the course of the election (I NSW 804/23);
- the charge of violation of the principle of secrecy of the vote in one of the PECs by improper arrangements of its premises, as well as the improper manner in which the voters certified with their signature the fact of issuing the voting cards, i.e. without using an overlay to cover the list of voters (I NSW 1001/23).
The Supreme Court, in the resolution, fully shared the view expressed in its resolution of 7 December 2023 (I NSWR 2262/23) adopted on the validity of the nationwide referendum held on 15 October 2023, according to which there was no infringement of Article 52(2) in conjunction with Article 52(1) of the Electoral Code (EC) with regard to the charge concerning the questions addressed by the members of the PECs to the voters on whether they want to receive voting cards, and concluded that there was no infringement of Article 52(2) in conjunction with Article 52(1) of the EC.
In view of the fact that in a number of protests, which were left without further proceedings due to formal deficiencies, the charge of violation of the electoral silence by the widespread publication of election polls conducted on the day of voting before its conclusion was raised, the Supreme Court pointed out that pursuant to Article 107(1), Article 115(1), Article 39(1) and Article 39(4) of the EC, it stems that, firstly, the polling station is closed at the moment of voting by the last voter who arrived at the polling station before 9.00 p.m., and this also includes voters who, due to the conditions of the premises, were not able to enter the polling station, but stood before that hour in the queue waiting to enter the building in which the premises of the PEC were located. Secondly, according to the abovementioned provisions, the voting period ends at 9.00 p.m. unless the PEC ordered an extension of the voting time due to extraordinary events that made the voting temporarily impossible. As none of the PECs notified the OKWs of the need to extend the voting period and did not adopt a relevant resolution, the voting ended at 9.00 p.m. Therefore, the restrictions under Article 107(1) and Article 115(1) of the EC no longer applied after 9.00 pm. Whereas, also after 9.00 p.m., the restrictions under Article 107(2) of the EC, according to which electoral agitation in the polling station and in the building in which the polling station is located is prohibited, applied.
One dissenting opinion to the reasons for the resolution was submitted.
Resolution of the full Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of 11 January 2024 (I NSW 1237_23).pdf
Polish original