Private or public?
On 10 January 2026 president Karol Nawrocki took part in the 18th National Patriotic Pilgrimage of Fans at Jasna Góra. During the event, as described by Virtual Poland, he greeted Tomasz P. “Dragon”, the leader of the pseudokibic community of Jagiellonian Białystok, who in the summertime of 2024 was sentenced to six years in prison, among others, for moving an organized crime group and promoting Nazism.
Karol Nawrocki's gathering with fans during the pilgrimage to Jasna Góra was organized by the Chancellery of the President. As “Gazeta Wyborcza” reported, according to the State Protection Service, the NRP was liable for establishing the list of participants on which the said criminal named “Dragon” was found. The SOP reported that the gathering was received the day before the event, did not receive a guest list and was exclusively engaged in pyrotechnical security. According to the SOP spokesperson, the gathering was closed.
However, the head of the President's office explains the substance rather differently:
If this was a closed meeting, it would just not have been a relation with this meeting. It was not prepared straight by the President's office, but by an association that has been organizing pilgrimages of supporters to Jasna Góra for respective years. It was public.
Photos considered confidential
Virtual Poland, with a view to welcoming Nawrocki with “Dragon” and respective another incidents, including the fact that Karol Nawrocki's friends from the 2009 cheerleading act and from the Lechia Gdańsk Fans Association took on profitable activities related to his favourite club, decided to check who else was present on the pilgrimage and who was straight interacting with the president.
The Virtual Poland Editorial Office asked the President's Chancellery to supply a set of photographs taken by the authoritative photographer during the visit, making an application in the mode of access to public information. After 2 weeks, however, she was refused. In response, the legal advisor at the Chancellery explained that the photographs are of a ‘work’ character, are intended for interior usage and do not constitute authoritative material as they were not created for publication. At the same time, the Chancellery photographer accompanied the president during the public event and took photos financed from public funds, any of which were later published on the President's authoritative website.
The law firm argues, citing the ultimate Administrative Court’s case law, that alleged working materials request not be made available in the framework of access to public information. In practice, this means that she recognises the president's contacts during authoritative events as her interior case.
