The city of Gdańsk, led by Civic Platform’s Aleksandra Dulkiewicz, has stepped into the fray against Karol Nawrocki, the civic candidate for President of Poland. City officials have formally called on Nawrocki to “enter into an agreement to pay for the stay of Jerzy Ż. in a care facility.” They are also threatening to file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office and the Chamber of Notaries regarding Nawrocki’s acquisition of an apartment. The move has prompted a firm response from the head of the Institute of National Remembrance’s legal representative.
Just as the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, the news portal Onet published a report alleging that Nawrocki owns two residential properties. One of them—a 28-square-meter studio apartment—was reportedly acquired under questionable circumstances.
In response, Nawrocki publicly detailed his personal relationship with Jerzy Żywicki, from whom he obtained the property. His campaign team also released Żywicki’s will and the notarized deed confirming the transaction.
Dulkiewicz Goes on the Offensive
Despite Nawrocki’s announcement that the apartment will be donated for charitable purposes, attacks from the “13 December Coalition” and sympathetic media outlets have not ceased. Now, the Gdańsk city government, under Dulkiewicz’s leadership, has joined the campaign.
Officials have demanded Nawrocki pay for Jerzy Ż.’s stay in a social welfare home, and they’re threatening to involve the prosecution and notarial authorities over the transfer of the apartment.
Legal Pushback
Bartosz Lewandowski, Nawrocki’s legal counsel, swiftly responded, stating:
“The city of Gdańsk is joining the election campaign attacks against Karol Nawrocki, despite having no substantial legal basis.”
Lewandowski cited Article 61, Sections 1 and 2 of the Polish Social Assistance Act (March 12, 2004), which clearly outlines who is obligated to pay for stays in care homes. The responsibility falls first on the resident, then—under specific financial conditions—on spouses and descendants, and finally on the municipality that referred the individual to the facility. Crucially, if the resident covers the full cost, the others are not obligated to contribute.
His message: the city has no legal grounds for its demands—only political motives.