Polish President Karol Nawrocki Vetoes Law on Fast-Track Divorces

 President of the Republic of Poland Karol Nawrocki announced on April 30 a veto of the Act of March 13, 2026 amending the Family and Guardianship Code and certain other acts (Sejm print no. 2121). This law, originally presented as a government bill almost a year ago – on May 12, 2025 (no. on the list: UDER24) envisaged that, for spouses between whom (according to their own declaration) a complete and permanent breakdown of marital cohabitation had occurred, an out-of-court divorce would be permitted, conducted before the head of the Civil Registry Office (USC) rather than in court. Such spouses would have to seek dissolution of their marriage on a no-fault basis, have no minor children in common (including any unborn children), have been married for at least 1 year, and not be in pending proceedings for divorce, separation, or annulment of the marriage.

The President, in a video released when announcing the veto, pointed out that “marriage is not just an ordinary entry in a register.” Marriage is one of the foundations of social life. It is the foundation of the family, the foundation of raising children, the foundation of the continuity of the national community,” and “the role of the state is not to facilitate the breakdown of what is most important.” It is the role of the state to protect families.” I would like to emphasize that the experts’ recommendations were important in making this decision: the Council for Family and Demography under the President and the Association of Large Families ‘Three Plus’” Karol Nawrocki explained that “a Las Vegas-style marriage—quick to enter into and easy to end—can be a movie scene. In a serious country, the law and statutes are not about writing a movie script. Marriage is not a trivial matter or a passing whim; it is an institution afforded special protection by the state. This is provided for in Article 18 of the Constitution, which requires the President, the state, and all its institutions to take measures to strengthen family and marital ties. And I remain faithful to those values.” Importantly, Attorney Rafał Dorosiński, a member of Ordo Iuris board is a member of the President’s Council on Family and Demography, established on December 2, 2025.

Institute representatives monitored the project’s subject matter for many months. On December 5 of last year, Attorney Nikodem Bernaciak participated in the nationwide academic conference “Dissolution of marriage through out-of-court divorce – in exspectatione futuri eventus“, organized at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Łódź by the Association of Civil Registry Officers of the Republic of Poland. One outcome of this event was the first analysis concerning the government’s draft bill, published on December 12, 2025. Then, on January 20, after the Ministry of Justice had already introduced self-amendments and referred the bill to the Sejm, the Institute published another analysis devoted to the impact of “express divorces” on the stability of marriage in general. Finally, on April 14, after the act was passed by the Sejm and the Senate, Atty. Rafał Dorosiński presented a consolidated analysis of the final version of the bill, which was submitted to the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland along with an appeal to veto the bill once voted into law by the Polish parliament. To the same end, the Ordo Iuris Institute and the Center for Life and Family also published a petition to the President of the Republic of Poland “Stop Fast-Track Divorces!”.

Ordo Iuris analysts have pointed out in their analyses that neither the Constitution of the Republic of Poland nor the international human rights framework in any way provides for a “right to divorce.” Divorce can be found in the legal systems of some countries; however, it is regarded only as an exception to the principle of protecting marriage, which should by default be treated as a lasting and indissoluble institution. Marriage, being subject to the special protection and care of the Republic of Poland, does not constitute an “ordinary contract.” The state cannot “abdicate” and withdraw from making a sovereign determination as to whether the social and demographic potential of a given marriage has already been irretrievably lost, even if the spouses believe so at that moment. This does not mean that divorce proceedings should be prolonged indefinitely. However, the appropriate place for adjudicating such fundamental matters should remain the realm of the judiciary—the courtroom.

Also, the experiences of Portugal, Spain, Italy, and France described in the Ordo Iuris analysis—which introduced “express divorces” in 2001, 2005, 2015, and 2016, respectively—suggest that merely making this option available causes an irreversible “marital catastrophe”—the changes introduced there led not only to a technical acceleration of the procedure but also to a decline in overall marital stability. In Portugal, the divorce rate rose from 1.8 in 2001 to as high as 2.7 in 2002; in Spain, from 1.2 in 2004 and 1.7 in 2005 to 2.9 in 2006; in Italy, from 0.9 in 2014 to 1.4 in 2015 and 1.6 in 2016. The divorce rate in these countries did not decline until the COVID-19 pandemic. Adult joint children who are disabled or otherwise dependent and under their parents’ care could also have been put at risk by the project. Ordo Iuris emphasized that, in such a case, any potential divorces should also remain under the appropriate supervision of the judiciary, as is the case, for example, in Brazil, Italy, or Spain. The complete omission of this issue by Donald Tusk’s left-liberal government is incomprehensible, all the more so given that the Polish Federation of Pro-Life Movements called attention to it during the public consultations.

Ordo Iuris also pointed out that out-of-court divorces would further weaken the protection of the “weaker party” (in practice, most often: the wife). A civil registry officer does not have the investigative tools of a court. It therefore cannot prevent a disproportionate arrangement of the parties’ obligations, nor examine whether one party was subjected to violence or duress. Thus, the weakening of judicial oversight makes marriage a less secure institution for people who, in good faith, give up paid employment, focus on caring for children, and ‘invest’ their time and energy in the family. “Fast-track divorces” would also discourage people from having children—the introduction of this measure only for childless marriages would create a sharp legal line, where the birth of a child would drastically increase the costs and complexity of dissolving a marriage. Such an incentive structure would encourage viewing a child as the point that closes off the possibility of easily “backing out” of a relationship, postponing the decision to become a parent, and, in some cases, forgoing having children altogether. As Attorney Rafał Dorosiński of the Management Board of the Ordo Iuris Institute notes, “introducing an out-of-court divorce would lead to a whole list of disastrous consequences — first and foremost the de facto trivialization of divorce, which would weaken marriage and reduce its dissolution to a simple administrative act.” And this despite the well-documented effects of divorce on the spouses themselves, including worsening health, risk of addiction, financial problems, and loneliness—not to mention the consequences for children. The President made the right decision. Marriage, the family, and children deserve better laws.”