Poland’s draft “closest person” bill is “civil partnerships” under a new name

Draft on the “status of the closest person”—a procedurally improper attempt to sneak in same-sex civil partnerships

On Tuesday, December 30, 2025—perhaps counting on a lack of public interest during the Christmas and New Year period—Donald Tusk’s government adopted the draft “Act on the Status of the Closest Person in a Relationship and on a Cohabitation Agreement” (list number: UD87) and draft provisions introducing this Act (number on the list: UD88).

In fact, however, these are not entirely new draft bills, but only slightly modified versions of the previous draft “Act on Registered Partnerships” and the draft provisions introducing that act—which were made public more than a year earlier, on October 18, 2024.

These projects were at the time subject to public consultations, which lasted until November 15, 2024. The Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture also participated in them, in its opinion indicating that the draft “should be definitively rejected as clearly contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which in Articles 18 and 71 protects the family and marriage as a union of a woman and a man, definitively excluding the institutionalization of any alternative form of cohabitation,” and that “the proposed provisions grant cohabiting unions, including same-sex ones, the vast majority of attractive privileges belonging to marriages under the Family and Guardianship Code, while at the same time depriving that union of the presumption of permanence and relieving cohabitants, including same-sex ones, of numerous obligations traditionally associated with marriage.”

Read also:

• Apparent Equality, Real Destruction. On the Consequences of Institutionalizing Informal Partnerships

The change made in December 2025, replacing “registered civil partnerships” with “the closest person within a relationship,” was presented by the leaders of the Left and the Polish People’s Party (PSL—the centrist agrarian party that is part of Donald Tusk’s coalition) during a conference on October 17, 2025, as a substantive change. The public, therefore, was counting on a new bill that would be subject to new public consultations.

Meanwhile, instead, an action was taken that appears intended to circumvent the obligation to conduct public consultations, as provided for in § 36(3) of Resolution No. 190 of the Council of Ministers of 29 October 2013, Rules of Procedure of the Council of Ministers. According to this provision, “dispensing with public consultations is permissible only in exceptional cases, in particular where the decision not to conduct public consultations is related to security, public order, the protection of health, or the protection of the environment.”

These criteria are also set out in § 99(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which governs a separate procedure for handling a draft government document. Interestingly, this provision was introduced… by the government of Donald Tusk himself, by a resolution of August 13, 2024 It was precisely this procedure that former Equality Minister Katarzyna Kotula used, yet in a letter dated December 23, 2025 she requested only the “omission of the Legislative Committee” – on the false premise that public consultations concerning the “status of the closest person” had already been conducted.

In fact, no such consultations took place, and the members of Donald Tusk’s government did not indicate any connection in this situation to security, public order, public health, or environmental protection that would allegedly justify proceeding with the bill in such a manner.

Moreover, in the new Regulatory Impact Assessment dated December 22, 2025, the government first cites the recent position expressed by the judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union on November 25, 2025 in the case Jakub Cupriak-Trojan, Mateusz Trojan v. the Mazovian Voivode, case number C‑713/23 (also discussed by the Ordo Iuris Institute in an analysis of December 15, 2025), but immediately indicates that the draft in question “is not a response to the CJEU judgment. The implementation of the obligations arising from it must take place in a separate procedure.”

Thus, the Tusk government effectively admits that, regardless of this proposal, it will seek to recognize same-sex unions institutionalized abroad as so-called “marriages.” The public does not know what the “status of the closest person” is—or rather the “status of a close person”, because that is how one should refer to this particular proposal originating from the President of the Republic of Poland, Karol Nawrocki. In this commentary, this issue will therefore be explained.

The “status of the closest person” present in the Polish public debate since 2015

In contemporary Polish public debate, the proposal to enact a separate law regulating the “closest person” status first appeared in Robert Mazurek’s interview with Andrzej Duda on May 28, 2015, immediately after his election as President of the Republic of Poland. At the time, the president-elect declared: “I do not support same-sex marriage, nor do I see any reason to legalize civil unions. But I think it would be possible to grant closest-person status to a person who could at least inquire at the hospital about the patient’s condition or receive that person’s mail.” In an interview with Wprost on February 3, 2020, Andrzej Duda, as he launched his reelection campaign, again made a statement along similar lines: “If it were about closest-person status that would facilitate matters such as mutual support, care, and obtaining information about that person’s health, then, as president, I would seriously consider signing such a bill. Especially since such a law would apply to everyone living in informal relationships.”

Among others, MP Paweł Kukiz responded to this proposal, declaring in an interview with the Polish Press Agency on December 28, 2021 that he intended to discuss the matter with the president; however, the law should not apply solely to relationships based on cohabitation: “It’s about allowing people who live together and take care of each other to visit each other in hospitals without difficulty in the event of illness and obtain information, as well as inherit,” said the leader of Kukiz’15 party. This is not—as he noted—only about civil unions, but also about caregivers for the elderly.

In a May 11, 2022 statement, however, he announced a suspension of action in this matter, stating that “in a situation where a war is ongoing on the other side of our eastern border, rapes and murders are occurring, and we are threatened by Soviet troops, there is no point in pressing the issue of the status of the closest person.”

This concept was also mentioned by a representative of the Ordo Iuris Institute in an interview with the Catholic Information Agency on January 19, 2024, in which it was emphasized that a potential “law on the status of the closest person would be something different from a law on civil partnerships. It would not involve establishing an alternative form of relationship; rather, it would streamline the exercise of rights that are already available,” with the caveat that everything “depends on the draft bill. So far, there is no such project.”

In an interview on July 19, 2024, the Deputy Prime Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz also referred to this idea, declaring a return to work on the bill on the status of the closest person, which “will facilitate inheritance and access to medical information”.

Karol Nawrocki: a status both for cohabiting partners and for caregivers or neighbors

Karol Nawrocki, while still a candidate for President of the Republic of Poland, during the presidential debate on May 23, 2025, declared: “I’ve repeatedly said that I support closest-person status—I personally know of such relationships. Back to Jerzy—if I had the status of Jerzy’s closest person, perhaps it wouldn’t have been possible to hide Jerzy with your colleague in Gdańsk and cut that poor, abandoned man off from me. […] I helped him for a dozen or so years. “[…] Those who took him away to shore up your election campaign would have to contact me if I had closest-person status,” he added, addressing his opponent.

Nawrocki stated that “marriage is obviously a union between a woman and a man” and added that he “cannot imagine same-sex marriage.” “But when it comes to helping people, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, or whether their relationship is different, such as that between a young person and a veteran, I am open to discussing the status of the closest person,” he declared.

As president-elect, in an interview with Dziennik Gazeta Prawna on June 11, 2025, Nawrocki stated, as Paweł Kukiz had done three years earlier, that the proposal for “closest person status” should in no way be based on cohabitation as a necessary element: “I am also ready to discuss the bill on the status of the closest person. Of course, I will not consent to any ideological ‘add-ons’ that undermine marriage as the union of a woman and a man. However, if this were to be a solution that would genuinely help citizens handle administrative and legal matters—regardless of partnership, sexual, or neighbor-related issues—then I don’t see any problem with it.”

This position was confirmed in an interview with Polsat News on October 17, 2025 by Rafał Leśkiewicz—Undersecretary of State in the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland and the president’s spokesman: “During his election campaign, the President clearly stated that he supports a legal solution that would regulate the status of the closest person,” the spokesman recalled. He added that such solutions would facilitate matters related to inheritance or access to medical information.

The President’s spokesperson also noted that the Polish Constitution defines marriage as a union between a woman and a man.” Meanwhile, in a Twitter post from October 20, 2025, the president himself stated again: “I will not sign any bill that undermines the status of marriage, which is protected by the Constitution. I am ready to discuss closest-person status, but it cannot in any way come close to the protected institution of marriage.”

In Polish law, the concept of the “closest person” is specific to the Act of 20 May 1971 – Code of Petty Offences and the Act of 6 June 1997 – Criminal Code, where it is defined identically (Article 47 § 3 of the Code of Petty Offences and Article 115 § 11 of the Criminal Code) as “a spouse, an ascendant, a descendant, a sibling, a relative by affinity in the same line or degree, a person in an adoptive relationship and their spouse, as well as a person cohabiting.”

Earlier, an almost identical definition was included in the Criminal Code of 1969 (Art. 120 § 5), and earlier still, in the Criminal Code of 1932 (Art. 91 § 1). Poland’s Supreme Court by resolution of February 25, 2016 (case no. I KZP 20/15), further held that this term may also be applied to same-sex cohabiting relationships: “The phrase “a person in a cohabiting relationship” refers to a person who is in a de facto relationship with another person in which there simultaneously exist spiritual (emotional), physical, and economic ties (a shared household) between them. The existence of such a relationship, i.e., “cohabitation,” can also be established when the absence of a specific type of bond is objectively justified. Being of different sexes is not a requirement for recognizing that persons in such a relationship are cohabiting.

Meanwhile, the statements made so far by President Karol Nawrocki (and earlier by Paweł Kukiz) clearly indicate that the foundation of the status they propose would not be based on consanguinity, affinity, adoption, or cohabitation. Such a status would be a broader concept, referring to relationships among roommates, neighbors, friends, or between caregivers and those in their care.

At this point, it is worth recalling that Poland’s 1932 Criminal Code, in Article 91 § 2, also contained a separate definition of a “close person”—”a person who, by virtue of kinship, affinity, friendship, or an obligation of gratitude, has the right to expect special consideration from the individual in question.”

Currently, the definition of “close person” can be found, e.g., in Article 3(1)(2) of the Act of November 6, 2008 on Patient Rights and the Patient Rights Ombudsman, where the scope of the term is significantly broader than in the case of the code-defined “closest person” and means “a spouse, a relative by consanguinity up to the second degree or a relative by affinity up to the second degree in the direct line, a legal representative, a person in a cohabiting relationship, or a person indicated by the patient.”

The concept of a “close person” is also elaborated in the guidelines of the Patient Rights Ombudsman and the President of the Personal Data Protection Office No. RzPP-DSD.420.74.2020 of 1 December 2020. For completeness, it should be added that, for example, Article 4 point 13 of the Act of 21 August 1997 on Real Estate Management or Article 2(5) of the Act of 15 December 2000 on Housing Cooperatives, as added to it by the amendment of 14 June 2007, contain definitions of a “close person” that are almost identical to the code definitions of a “closest person”, whereas Article 2 point 6 of the Act of 11 April 2003 on Shaping the Agricultural System runs completely counter to the present discussion, adding to the scope of the definition of a “close person” also the stepfather, stepmother and stepchildren.

In light of President Nawrocki’s remarks, however, it should be presumed that his use of the term “closest person” is not appropriate for identifying the legislative purpose he seeks to achieve. Of course, the legal definitions from the Criminal Code or the Code of Petty Offenses likewise do not formally affect other statutes; however, § 148 of the Regulation of the Prime Minister of June 20, 2002 on the Principles of Legislative Technique permits other statutes to depart from the code definitions only by way of exception, and in the case at hand this does not appear justified.

Therefore, the term that those who wish to refer to President Karol Nawrocki’s concept should use is “close person,” not “closest person.”

Existing rights for “close persons” are more numerous than the privileges of cohabitants.

In Poland, people in any close relationships other than family (e.g., roommates, neighbors, caregivers) already can:

1. Obtain information about another person’s health condition (Article 31(1) and (2) of the Act of December 5, 1996 on the Professions of Physician and Dentist) and access to their medical records (Article 26(1) of the Act of November 6, 2008, on Patient Rights and the Patient Rights Ombudsman), including after their death (Article 26(2) of the same Act),
2. Authorize each other to access each other’s Internet Patient Accounts, which contain a range of medical information (Article 7b(1) of the Act of April 28, 2011, on the Healthcare Information System),
3. Execute a will in which they mutually appoint each other as heirs (Articles 959–967 of the Act of April 23, 1964 – Civil Code),
4. Collect remuneration for work (Article 98 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 300 of the Act of June 26, 1974 – Labor Code) and postal items at the place of residence and at a postal facility (Article 37(2)(2) and (3) of the Act of November 23, 2012 – Postal Law).
5. Maintain a joint bank account (Article 51 of the Act of August 29, 1997 – Banking Law, Article 2 point 25 of the Act of August 19, 2011 on Payment Services),
6. Designate each other as the beneficiary to whom the insurer will pay the insurance proceeds upon the other’s death, with priority even over the insured’s immediate family (Articles 831 § 1 and 832 § 2 of the Civil Code),
7. Receive an annuity in the event of the death of the other person resulting from bodily injury or a health disorder, provided that the deceased person voluntarily and regularly provided the other participant in that relationship with means of support (Article 446 § 2 sentence 2 of the Civil Code),
8. Be exempt from giving testimony or answering questions about a person who is in a particularly close personal relationship with the accused (Article 185 of the Act of June 6, 1997 – Code of Criminal Procedure),
9. Jointly take out a loan from a bank (Article 69(1) of the Banking Law in conjunction with Article 366 of the Civil Code),
10. Claim the body of another person who has died and bury it (Article 10(1) of the Act of January 31, 1959, on Cemeteries and the Burial of the Dead).
11. Receive a funeral grant (PLN 7,000 as of January 1, 2026) if the deceased person’s body is buried at the expense of the other party to their relationship (Article 78(1) of the Act of December 17, 1998, on pensions and disability pensions from the Social Insurance Fund).
12. On the basis of a power of attorney, act on behalf of and represent another person, including at a bank, at the Tax Office (Article 138b § 1 and 138d § 1 Act of 29 August 1997 – Tax Ordinance), the National Health Fund, the Social Insurance Institution (PEL power of attorney), and, on the basis of a mutual agreement, settle the terms for the division of assets.

Compared with the specified rights that can be attributed to “close persons,” the catalog of rights available to “the closest person” by virtue of cohabitation (that is, partners) appears, paradoxically, to be very narrow and almost exclusively limited to criminal procedure. Cohabiting partners may:

1. Take over the apartment lease after their deceased cohabiting partner, provided that they were permanently residing together in that apartment at the time of the partner’s death (Art. 691 § 1 and § 2 of the Civil Code);
2. Be entitled to have the court order a compensatory payment in their favor of up to 200,000 zlotys, if, as a result of the death of their cohabiting partner who was a victim of a crime, their living situation has significantly deteriorated (Articles 46 § 2 and 47 § 3 of the Criminal Code);
3. Be exempt from criminal liability for concealing exculpatory evidence, out of fear of criminal liability threatening a cohabiting partner (Article 236 § 2 of the Criminal Code);
4. Be exempt from criminal liability for concealing a cohabiting partner who is the perpetrator of an offense (Article 239 § 2 of the Criminal Code);
5. To be exempt from criminal liability for failure to notify the authorities of the preparation, attempt, or commission of certain offenses, out of fear of criminal liability faced by a cohabiting partner (Article 240 § 3 of the Criminal Code);
6. File a petition for the pardon of a convicted cohabiting partner (Article 560 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

The rights afforded to the broadly defined group of “close persons” are therefore independent of whether the relationship between the two persons is a cohabiting relationship (by its very nature based on shared conjugal life) or is of an entirely different character—unrelated to sexuality. Its foundation may be roommates living together at the same address (especially students or seasonal workers or employees on temporary assignment) in a locality far from their immediate family, providing care (not necessarily involving living together around the clock) for an elderly or disabled person, prioritizing mutual friendship over relationships with a family in conflict, or simply economic necessity, which prompts neighbors (especially older ones) to take additional care of their affairs in emergencies.

As shown by the example in the enumeration above, under the current legal framework, appointing a close person (outside the group of “closest persons”) as a special fiduciary for one’s interests is possible, but difficult and time-consuming, because a separate power of attorney or agreement is required for each individual matter. The fact that such a relationship exists is often difficult to verify quickly—particularly in situations (especially medical) that require immediate action.

Public entities, let alone private ones, do not have access to a single electronic register where they could promptly verify whether a given person has, with respect to another person, the “close-person status” indicating that they hold all (or only some) of the rights indicated above. A point of reference for such a register could be, for example, the Central Register of General Powers of Attorney, introduced into Article 138d § 4 of the Tax Ordinance by the September 10, 2015, amendment. The “close person” status would therefore not involve granting cohabiting couples (whether heterosexual or homosexual) any new, additional privileges, but would only organize and standardize access to already existing rights, without at the same time diminishing the attractiveness of marriage as an exclusively privileged institution.

Summary

The draft adopted on December 30, 2025, by Donald Tusk’s government does not regulate the status of a close person in line with the publicly expressed expectations of the President of the Republic of Poland, Karol Nawrocki. It constitutes yet another attempt to smuggle in the institutionalization of homosexual relationships, thus being in complete contradiction to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The use, for this purpose, of deception and the circuitous construction of “closest-person status” and a “cohabitation agreement” merits only a negative moral judgment.

Deciding on such an important issue while bypassing mandatory public consultations and manipulating the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of Ministers for that purpose, also appears exceptionally reprehensible. These actions are all the more regrettable because they are endorsed by politicians of the Polish People’s Party—an theoretically agrarian “conservative” party that professes attachment to its 130-year tradition and that just over twenty years ago publicly expressed opposition to “same-sex marriages and the adoption of children by homosexuals.”

The Polish Sejm should reject the submitted bill, and if the deputies nevertheless decide to continue work on the unconstitutional provisions, any law ultimately adopted should be decisively vetoed by the President of the Republic of Poland pursuant to Article 122(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

Advocate Nikodem Bernaciak—senior analyst at the Ordo Iuris Institute’s Center for Research and Analysis.