The National
Broadcasting Council

Point 1. Unlawful deprivation of public media of funds due for lost licence fee revenue.

'Funds for lost licence fee revenue have so far been allocated to public broadcasters on the basis of laws specifying the amount of 'compensation for lost licence fee revenue due to exemptions referred to in Article 4(1) of the Law on Licence Fees' for a given year.’ In 2024, the Sejm did not adopt any law that would grant public media compensation for lost licence fee revenue.

Point 2. Gross violations of the law in licensing proceedings conducted in a protracted manner that undermine the principle of citizens' trust in the state.

This allegation is unfounded. The current regulations do not clearly specify time limits for dealing with licensing matters, as confirmed by court rulings. Broadcasters are kept informed about the progress of proceedings.

Point 3. Bias in imposing financial penalties on broadcasters.

In the event of a violation of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, the Chair of the National Broadcasting Council is obliged to impose a financial penalty, as these provisions are mandatory.

According to Article 53(1) of the Act, the maximum penalty is set at 50% of the annual fee paid by the broadcaster for using the frequency to broadcast the programme. For satellite broadcasters, the penalty amounts to up to 10% of their revenue in the previous tax year.

The Chairwoman of the National Broadcasting Council justifies the decision to impose a penalty each time. According to statistics, 72 penalties were imposed in 2024, including: three for TV Republika S.A.; eight for Telewizja Polsat Sp. z o.o.; seven for Telewizja Polska; three for Telewizja Puls Sp. z o.o.; four for TVN S.A.; and one for Fratria. Therefore, the allegation that the penalties were imposed in a biased manner is unfounded.

Point 4. Inadequate maintenance of complaint records and failure to comply with the obligation to make programmes accessible to persons with disabilities.

The National Broadcasting Council keeps up-to-date electronic records of correspondence (complaints, requests, petitions) and cases under consideration. These are updated daily, which makes it possible to monitor the status of individual issues.

 The statement that the National Council's ‘records are kept carelessly’ is untrue. A single register, rather than separate registers for complaints, petitions and requests, does not in any way affect the substantive examination of the letters received.

The allegation that the National Broadcasting Council has allegedly failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure the accessibility of programmes for persons with disabilities is doubly misguided.

Pursuant to Article 18a(1) of the Broadcasting Act, it is television broadcasters who are obliged to ensure the accessibility of programmes for persons with visual or hearing disabilities by introducing facilities. The National Broadcasting Council only verifies the fulfilment of these obligations by broadcasters. It does not itself ensure access to programmes with facilities for persons with disabilities.

It is worth noting that the average share of public service programming in television schedules in 2024 reached 50.8% of broadcasting time, excluding advertising and teleshopping. This represents an increase of 7.3 percentage points compared to 2023.

Point 5. Irregularities in the activities of the National Media Institute (NMI).

Allegations of irregularities in the activities of the National Media Institute are unfounded. In 2024, the institute carried out a number of research projects and provided regular reports on the consumption of media services, as confirmed by publications available on the NMI website.

The activities of the NMI were audited by the Supreme Audit Office (NIK). The irregularities identified in the audit from the initial period of its operation (until 2022) have been rectified. Contracts awarded by the NMI were subject to control by the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA), which did not raise any objections to this area of the institute's operations.

The institute's activities were restricted from December 2024 due to the withdrawal of funding for its activities in 2025. In mid-2025, the NMI  was put into liquidation.

Point 6. Failure to submit the mandatory report to the European Commission on counteracting harmful content on VOD platforms.

The National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT) is not required to submit a report on on-demand audiovisual media services (VOD). However, the National Council regularly submits the documents, reports and statements required by law to the European Commission.

Point 7. Challenging EU regulations on the DSA and EMFA.

The National Broadcasting Council has repeatedly provided detailed and substantive feedback on the preliminary assumptions for implementing the Digital Services Act (DSA) in Poland. The National Broadcasting Council has also demanded that the Polish government take into account its role as a constitutional body dealing with issues covered by DSA regulations (such as the protection of minors, false information and illegal content).

However, according to the government's assumptions, the National Broadcasting Council is only to deal with matters relating to video sharing platforms (VSPs) and not content sharing platforms. Controls in this area have been assigned to the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE).

The same applies to work on implementing the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), where the National Broadcasting Council's expert role has been omitted.

Point 8. Creating a negative image of Polish media institutions on the international stage.

The National Broadcasting Council did not create such an image, but rather treated its regulatory role independently of the government in a responsible manner.

 At international forums, the National Broadcasting Council presented the current state of public media in Poland and its situation following the unprecedented events of the forcible takeover and liquidation of public media in December 2023.

Point 9. The politicised nature of the report does not meet the standards expected of an official document from a constitutional state body.

In accordance with the regulations, the National Broadcasting Council submitted the 'Report on the activities of the National Broadcasting Council in 2024' and 'Information on the basic problems of radio and television in 2024' to the Sejm, the Senate and the President of the Republic of Poland.

The report contains a description of the Council's activities, as well as the state of public media in 2024. It contains figures, data and facts divided into 19 thematic chapters and 24 appendices. These include lists of all the National Broadcasting Council's decisions, licences and proceedings for the reporting period, as well as hard financial information such as the costs of the public service mission and licence fee revenues distributed by the National Broadcasting Council. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the report is politicised. 

Point 10. Unreliability and arbitrariness of the competition procedure for the MUX-8 multiplex, violating the principles of equality and transparency.

The MUX-8 competition procedure was conducted in accordance with the constitutional principle of equality before the law, based on the criteria set out in the Broadcasting Act. Two broadcasters were selected and granted licences by resolution of the National Broadcasting Council.

 Point 11. The politicisation of the Chair of the National Broadcasting Council is evident in public statements and document content, violating the constitutional obligation of impartiality.

The current National Broadcasting Council consists of experts with many years of experience in the media and public administration. They are not members of any political party.

 Point 12. Lack of complete information on the financial situation of public media.

 Each year, the National Broadcasting Council presents preliminary financial data received from public media companies in its reports. The deadline for submitting the report on the Council's activities to the Sejm, Senate and President is at the end of May, and the deadline for assessing the report on public broadcasters' mission implementation is 30 June.

The National Broadcasting Council's 2024 report included complete data on public broadcasters for 2023. Information on broadcasters' reports for 2024 will be included in the National Broadcasting Council's next report.

Point 13. Lack of a long-term strategy for the development of the National Broadcasting Council's activities.

The KRRiT's annual reports on its activities, together with information on the main problems facing radio and television in a given calendar year, fulfil the obligations of Article 12 of the Broadcasting Act.  However, the provisions do not mention any strategy for developing the KRRiT's activities. As a rule, the reporting documents cover a given calendar year.

The KRRiT fulfils its statutory obligations reliably and transparently, thereby ensuring pluralism, independence, and freedom of speech within the Polish media system.