President Karol Nawrocki did not sign a bill imposing a taxation on extraordinary profits of fuel companies and referred it to the Constitutional Court, pointing to the retroactive action of the provisions. Donald Tusk considered it a "shocking decision" and suggested that drivers would feel it at the distributors. The President's law firm bounced the ball, convincing that the government, with VAT and excise duties, holds a real fuel price lever in its hand. Who truly decides how many Poles they leave at the station?
Court alternatively of signature
Instead of signing for a fresh tribute, president Karol Nawrocki referred the case to the Constitutional Court. He did it in preventive control, so before the rules got in force. The head of state stressed that he was not looking for a veto, but was asking for an examination of the compliance with the basic law. The heart of uncertainty is the retroactive action of the law: the taxation was to include profits already made in the spring of 2026, although the law itself would only become applicable later. This clash with the rule that the law does not work backwards (lex retro non agit), the president considered a constitutional problem alternatively than a political one.
"Remember this at the distributors"
The head of government reaction was immediate and acute. Donald Tusk wrote about Karol Nawrocki's "shocking decision" and argued that the president blocked the bill to taxation "gigantic profits of fuel companies". According to the Prime Minister, the proceeds were to be financed by cheaper fuel on the stations under the programme, which he called CPN. The entry ended with a call for voters to remember this decision "at the distributors". The message was clear: the work for the prices at the stations the government wants to burden the Presidential Palace.
Palace's Answer: Prime Minister "Economic Diletant"
Riposta didn't keep her waiting long. Paweł Head of State, head of the cabinet, took the floor. He estimated that "the current Prime Minister is an economical diletant" erstwhile he tried to convince Poles that the imposition of another fuel taxation would make the prices on the stations fall. A co-worker of the president called for the government, alternatively of multiplying the tribute, to scope for the tools that he actually has in his hand: a simplification in VAT and excise duties on fuel. In this narrative, the decision from the Palace does not hit drivers but protects them from a solution that could rise prices to evidence levels.
Four billion and the question of who pays
The government primarily stresses the budgetary impact. Finance Minister Andrzej Domański calculated that sending the bill to the Court was blocking the next 4 billion zlotys, which were to fund the budget and the fuel price shield program. That's a real amount and a real argument. The question remains, however, which is the lowest in this dispute: who yet bears the burden of the taxation imposed on the trading of fuels. In economical practice, the taxing taxation on fuel sales tends to travel down the chain towards the end-user, the refueling driver at the distributor. So the dispute over "cheap fuel" is set above the head of whoever most likely pays the bill.
Windfall taxation in Polish
Taxes on extraordinary profits are not a Polish invention. After the energy shock of 2022, the full Union reached for it, placing additional tribute on the companies that made a luck on the steep emergence in natural materials prices. The Polish thought fits into this stream, but has its paradox. The home fuel marketplace is dominated by Orlen, a group controlled by the Treasury. Thus, Danina, aimed at the "gigantic profits of fuel companies" mostly hits the national champion, and thus indirectly at its owner, the state. This shows that the dispute is not a simple clash between citizens and greedy corporations, but a decision on how the state manages its own company and its own budget without violating the rules on which trust in the law is based.
Constitution as a brake on fiscal appetite
From a national interest perspective, the essence of the case is not 1 entry on social media. It is about the limits in which a state can scope into the taxpayer's pocket, and whether it is allowed to do so backwards. The rule of non-retroactivity is not a formal trifle, but 1 of the foundations of the citizen's trust in the state: the rules of play should not change after the fact. If the Court divides the President's doubts, the dispute over fuel donation will be a reminder that even the advanced budget nonsubjective does not exempt the legislator from the work to respect the constitutional framework. If he doesn't divide them, the government will come back to the thought enhanced. In both cases, the last word does not belong to politicians but to judges, and the bill goes where it usually goes: to a fuel station.
Source: One News
![Sukces pleszewskich policjantów. Złoty Medal od Prezydenta RP i podium dla kryminalnych [ZDJĘCIA]](https://static.zpleszewa.pl/main-image-1200/1aa7f132-2b57-452e-af5e-e88b0f432a3e)