President Karol Nawrocki Signs Animal Law and Refers Fuel Tax to Tribunal

Legislative Outcomes: Animal Welfare and Market Regulation

While signing five bills into law, he framed his approval of the revised animal welfare legislation—the so-called “chain law”—as a vindication of his previous veto in November 2025. According to the President, his earlier refusal to sign the initial proposal forced the government and parliament to develop more practical, effective regulations that account for the realities of farmers, breeders, and rural households.

Karol Nawrocki, President of Poland, stated that the pressure of a veto is effective because his previous decision to refuse his signature on that bill compelled the government and parliament to work better and led to the creation of law that is more reasonable, effective, and closer to the daily lives of citizens.

Karol Nawrocki, President of Poland

The new law introduces a general ban on keeping dogs permanently on chains, while mandating daily exercise and adequate shelter. It replaces previous, more rigid requirements that the President had criticized as absurd and disconnected from reality. Owners have been granted a 12-month transition period to adapt to the new standards. Alongside the animal welfare bill, the President signed legislation concerning tourism vouchers, the regulation of artificial intelligence, access to substitution treatment, and the National Oncology Network.

Constitutional Tribunal Referral of the Windfall Tax

While the President approved several government initiatives, he broke with the ruling coalition regarding the proposed windfall tax on liquid fuel profits. The legislation, intended to cover costs associated with the “Ceny Paliw Niżej” (CPN) program, aimed to tax excess profits earned by fuel producers and importers between March and December 2026. President Nawrocki opted to send the bill to the Constitutional Tribunal for preventive review, identifying a fundamental conflict with the principle of Lex retro non agit—the rule that law should not act retroactively.

The President’s rationale highlights a sharp disagreement over the economic impact of the tax. He argued that because the law was slated to take effect in August but apply to income generated since March, it constituted an unfair burden. Furthermore, he expressed concern that the 60 percent tax rate would be passed directly to the public.

Karol Nawrocki, President of Poland, asserted that the new tax does not lower fuel prices, as its primary purpose is to provide money for the budget; furthermore, he added that he cannot accept a situation in which an attempt to patch up state finances is presented to citizens as a protection of their interests, when the result will be another wave of price hikes.

Karol Nawrocki, President of Poland

Political and Economic Repercussions

The government had expected the tax to generate significant revenue, intended to offset the revenue loss from reduced VAT and excise duties on fuel.

Beyond the constitutional concerns, the President argued that he was protecting the competitiveness of the market. He noted that the tax would affect not only major players like Orlen but also smaller, independent fuel companies that often operate on thinner margins. According to the President, weakening these smaller firms could inadvertently increase market concentration, ultimately harming consumers by limiting competition.

As the matter moves to the Constitutional Tribunal, the broader fiscal impact remains uncertain. The government’s ability to recoup the costs of the CPN program is now stalled, leaving the state budget’s stability as a primary point of contention between the Presidency and the cabinet. The Tribunal’s eventual ruling will serve as a definitive guideline on whether the state may impose such retrospective financial burdens on private enterprises.