Poland’s Supreme Court overturned a ruling requiring a woman to apologize and pay damages to officials she allegedly defamed in emails to a local council.
Initial Case and Lower Court Rulings
The case originated in 2024 when a resident requested public information from a local authority regarding the employment of a specific individual and a contract related to a campaign banner. The woman was subsequently accused of defaming officials and attempting to influence official actions through threats (under Articles 224 § 2 and 226 § 1 of the Penal Code).
The Regional Court found the woman guilty of 12 offenses, sentencing her to 10 months of restriction of liberty, an apology to three officials, and a total of 15,000 zł in damages. The District Court reduced the sentence to 8 months and the damages to 6,000 zł on appeal, but upheld the apology requirement.
Ombudsman Intervention and Appeal
The Ombudsman intervened, filing an appeal on the woman’s behalf, challenging the validity of requiring apologies and damages to officials as private individuals.
Key Argument: Protecting the Institution, Not the Individual
The Ombudsman argued that the courts had demonstrably violated procedural law. A key argument was that a private individual cannot be considered a victim of the crime of influencing official actions (Art. 224 § 2 of the Penal Code).
Deputy Ombudsman Stanisław Trociuk emphasized that the law protects the proper functioning of the institution and the freedom to perform official duties, not the personal interests of the official. While the official is the subject of the action, the crime targets the institution, not the individual’s private rights.
Supreme Court Decision
On January 23, 2026, the Supreme Court (case file III KK 519/25) fully supported the Ombudsman’s arguments and overturned the ruling. The Court reasoned that criminal protection of officials is strictly linked to their function, not their status as private individuals, limiting the possibility of seeking personal financial claims in criminal proceedings related to influencing an institution.
This ruling is significant for all citizens involved in disputes with public administration, confirming that criminal protection for officials is tied to their role, not their private status, thus restricting personal financial claims in cases of undue influence.