- The National Electoral Commission was to become a national contact point, impose most of the administrative fines, and, during electoral and referendum campaigns, take over the supervision of compliance with EU policy advertising rules.
- The maximum punishment provided for in the Act was 6% of the yearly income or 6% of the world's yearly income, in the case of entities with revenues abroad.
- 15.10.2026. The president of the Republic refused to sign the bill and gave it to the Sejm for reconsideration.
Objective and ratio legis Act
The Law of 4.9.2026 on Competent Authorities and Procedures for Political Advertising and work for Violation of Obligations in These Cases was to supply national solutions essential for the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13.3.2024 on transparency and targeting of political advertising (OJ L 2024, p. 900).
It shall apply straight and in rule from 10.10.2025. It regulates, among others, information obligations related to the provision of political advertising services, the marking of specified advertisements and the usage of targeting and providing advertising techniques related to the processing of individual data. The veto law was so not intended to make substantive principles of political advertising from scratch, but to indicate Polish authorities liable for their enforcement, procedure and strategy of sanctions.
PKW was to play a central role
The veto bill awarded PKW a central position in the national strategy of application of the fresh regulations. The PKW was to service as a national contact point to which the another authorities would supply information on the proceedings initiated and decisions taken.
The Commission was besides to impose administrative fines for most infringements of Regulation 2024/900. The exception afraid infringements of Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation 2024/900 relating to the targeting and transportation of political advertising utilizing individual data – in this respect the president of UODO was to be competent.
Regulation on election and referendum campaigns was peculiarly important. During these periods PKW was to presume competence to supervise compliance with Regulation 2024/900, regardless of the division of properties in force outside the campaign.
UKE, KRRiT, UOKiK and UODO as supervisory authorities
Apart from the run periods, the property was to depend on the kind of supervised entity.
The president of UKE was to control electronic communications entrepreneurs, KRRiT – media service providers and video sharing platforms, while the president of UOKiK – another entities covered by the Regulation. The president of UOKiK was besides to keep a registry of legal representatives provided for in EU legislation.
The president of UODO, on the another hand, was to be liable for matters concerning the processing of individual data erstwhile targeting or providing political advertising. In the event of a simultaneous violation of regulations on political advertising and protection of individual data, part of the data case was to be transferred to the president of UODO.
Procedure according to KPA and penalties up to 6% of income
Proceedings concerning infringements of the Regulation may have been initiated ex officio at the request of the trader or of a natural person. In principle, they were to be conducted according to KPA.
Upon uncovering the breach, the competent authority could have asked the PCC to impose an administrative penalty. The Commission would not be bound by the proposal itself or the amount of sanctions proposed therein.
The work was to include sponsors, publishers and providers of political advertising services. The maximum punishment was 6% of the yearly income or 6% of the yearly worldwide income of the entity generating gross besides outside Poland. PKW was to take into account, among another things, the freedom of the press and the principles of the profession of journalist.
The decision imposing the punishment could be appealed to the territory Court in Warsaw – the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection within 14 days. To this end, the NPC was to be supplemented by a fresh separate proceeding concerning liability for breach of the obligations related to political advertising.
The president questioned the independency of any bodies
One of the fundamental arguments set out in the justification for the veto was the issue required by Article 22(4) of Regulation 2024/900 of the level of independency of supervisory authorities.
According to the president of the Republic of Poland, the request of full independency from external political interventions and pressures would not satisfy the entrustment of supervisory powers to the president of the UKE and the president of the UOKiK. The explanatory memorandum points to the manner in which the heads of these offices and their relation with the executive authority were appointed. The president of the Republic of Poland felt that specified a construction could make vulnerability to political force on matters concerning political advertising.
The fresh tasks of PKW were to jeopardise its position
The second group of objections afraid PKW's positions.
The president pointed out that the Act did not limit the function of PKW to coordinating cooperation between authorities. The Commission was to conduct proceedings, supervise the application of the Regulation during the run and punish political advertising operators.
In the opinion of the President, specified a change in the nature of PKW's activities could lead to its engagement in current political disputes and undermine the Commission's perception as an impartial body liable for holding elections.
The reservation was besides raised by the plan of the strategy itself, in which 1 authority was to state the infringement and the PKW was then to settle for sanctions.
Too broad a definition of political advertising and advanced sanctions
Another argument was the risks arising, according to the President, from the broad scope of the concept of political advertising adopted in EU law.
The justification for the veto indicated that this concept may include not only classical electoral material but besides a message designed to influence the legislative process, referendum, election behaviour or another elements of the public debate. According to the President, the ambiguity of the criteria may give emergence to doubts as to the boundary between political advertising and average political, social, public or civic activities and may give emergence to a freezing effect on the part of those who print specified content.
The president linked the amount of sanctions provided for by the Act to this problem. The maximum level of 6% of yearly or global income was considered to be excessive, especially in his assessment of insufficient precision in the scope of responsibilities. He besides pointed out the hazard of reducing the pluralism of political debate.
Reservations to 3 months vacatio legis and EU law
The president besides questioned 3 months vacatio legis. In his assessment, this period was besides short to prepare PKW and another bodies for fresh tasks, including the creation of procedures, legal and administrative services and adequate personnel and method facilities.
The last group of arguments was constitutional. The president expressed doubts as to whether certain solutions to Regulation 2024/900/EU did not interfere with associate States' competence to organise electoral processes. He referred, inter alia, to restrictions on the provision of political advertising services to certain non-EU entities within 3 months of the election or referendum. In his opinion, this may rise questions about the limits of the competences conferred on the European Union and the rule of State sovereignty.
At the same time, in the justification of the veto, the president pointed out that he did not question the request to increase the transparency of political advertising or to limit its hidden funding. The objection afraid the model of national supervision and enforcement adopted in the Act.
Legislative phase – the bill returned to the Sejm
4.9.2026. The Sejm passed the bill by a ratio 242 votes to 198 againstNo abstentions. 24.9.2026. The legislature passed the bill without amendment and was handed it to the president on the same day.
15.10.2026 The president of the Republic of Poland, acting on the basis of Article 122(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, refused to sign the Act and transferred it to the Sejm for reconsideration.
This means that the law provides for 3 months vacatio legis it will not start running, and the national strategy of bodies, proceedings and sanctions established therein will not now enter into force. Parliament may reject veto by a majority 3/5 votes in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Members.
