The Supreme Court in its order of 23 March 2016 case file III CZP 102/15 answered important questions related to minutes of hearing that were recorded as electronic/digital versions. The Regional Court decided a case related to payment, while some doubts as to interpretation of law related to recording of minutes and evidence, arose. The Supreme Court held that the transcription of the minutes that were recorded as sound and video is not an official document according to the provisions of the Civil Proceedings Code – CPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with subsequent amendments, and as such cannot be used for findings related to court’s session. If the minutes recorded as audio and/or audio and video do not allow to determine the content of evidence, the Court has to repeat an action related to this step. On an appeal, there is no need for the applicant to indicate a specific part of the sound recording (or video and audio) that relates to action of taking an evidence.
Archive for: e-proceedings
A Polish citizen wanted to know if the Mayor of Tłuszcz town and municipality has issued any official documents that would define and regulate actions of the municipality on Facebook. He decided to post a request to disclose such information using the official Facebook’s page of Tłuszcz’s municipality. After two weeks of inactivity, he filed a complaint against the mayor.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its decision of 15 March 2013 case file II SAB/Wa 513/12 dismissed the complaint and ruled that a post on Facebook is not a proper request for disclosure of public information.
The Head of District Labour Office called an unemployed person to appear before the Office in order to confirm readiness for employment. The Head director informed that the absence will result in the deprivation status of the unemployed. The unemployed person informed the Office that he was not able to appear, becasue of the unexpected surgery. He also requested the Office to appoint a new date to appear, and for delivery of correspondence by e-mail. The Office sent another call by mail. The unemployed did not appear before the Office, and by the decision of the Foreman, he lost unemployment status and privileges. He decided to file a complaint against this decision.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski in its judgment of 28 February 2013 case file II SA/Go 43/13 annulled the contested decision, ruled it unenforceable. The Court ruled that according to the provisions of Article 391 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments, the delivery should be be made by means of electronic communication if a party or other participant to the administrative proceedings applied to the public administration authority for the service, or consented to having the service effected by such means.
Polish citizen demanded the publication of his complaint against the cancellation of the proceedings of his action that was filed before the Constitutional Tribunal, on Tribunal’s website. He argued that this is public information and should be widely available. The Tribunal refused. Therefore, he decided to submit a complaint for failure to act to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. Legal counsel representing the Tribunal argued at the hearing that there is no legal basis for publication of such complaint on the Internet, and explained that the complaint has been filed after a final decision to discontinue the proceedings and, therefore, should not at all be processed by.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 December 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 335/12 dismissed the complaint. The Court ruled that public authorities are required to publish information if they are obliged to do so by law. The Court pointed out that there is a failure to act if the authority refuses to disclose information, which is required to make available. According to the Court, the complaint is not such information. In addition, according to the decree of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal on the disclosure of pleadings at www.trybunal.gov.pl website, under the link “cases”, the following materials are available: i) the decision for posting complaints, but it does not apply at the initial stage of deciding on the admission of a complaint or request, ii) an electronic copy of the complaint (with supplementary documents), without attachments after referring the constitutional complaint (application) by the Court to decide on the mertis.
The District Court in Toruń requested the Polish Supreme Court to answer the question whether a party of civil proceedings is allowed to file an appeal in form of electronic document. If the answer would be “yes”, the Court also wanted to know whether the deadline for lodging an appeal is confirmed by the date on which the letter was received by the device receiving the court’s e-mails. The District Court additionally enquired, whether such letters can be signed by electronic signature as defined in the Act of 18 September 2001 on Electronic Signature – ESA – (in Polish: ustawa o podpisie elektronicznym), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 15 November 2001, No 130, item 1450, with subsequent amendments.
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 23 May 2012 case file III CZP 9/12 held that filing an appeal by e-mail is acceptable only, if a specific provision allows for such action. Currently, this option is very limited in the Polish law. The printed version of an appeal filed by electronic means may be treated as effective, if it will be signed by the party at the request received from the Court, and the date for submission of such a letter to the court is then the date the printing was done.
A Polish citizen filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court via e-mail, and signed it with the qualified electronic signature. The Court called him to sign the complaint manually, within 7 days under pain of rejection of the complaint. The applicant argued that he already signed it.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź in its order of 13 March 2012 case file II SAB/Łd 35/12 rejected the complaint. The Court held that the complaint must meet two kinds of requirements. First of all, the complaint must meet all the requirements provided for the letter in court proceedings, and also it has to include an indication of the contested decision, order, or any other act or activity, the indication of an authority or body whose action or inaction is a subjetct of the complaint, the explanation of violation of law or legal interest. As each letter, the complaint should therefore be signed by the party or its legal representative or attorney, according to the provisions of Article 46 § 1 point 4 of the Polish Act of 30 August 2002 on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi), published in Journal Of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270 with subsequent amendments. According to the Court, for the effectiveness of the electronically signed letter it has to be signed manually by the party. Therefore, the signature of the applicant’s letter must be submitted in person, i.e, it has to be a manual sign of a specific person to allow for its identification. An exception to the above mentioned rule, is a provision stating that a letter which can not be signed by a party in person, should be signed by a person authorized by the party. Such a person has to explain the reasons why the party itself did not signed the letter. Failure to sign the complaint within the prescribed period of time means that the applicant did not remove its defects in form, which results in rejection of the complaint by the Court. The VAC noted that its view is confirmed by well-established case law of the administrative courts. See the order of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 November 2011 case file I OZ 831/11, the order of the SAC of 8 September 2011 case file I OZ 657/11, the order of the SAC of 27 May 2011 case file I OZ 368/11.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gdańsk in its order of 23 March 2011 case file I SA/Gd 916/10 rejected a complaint against a decision on leaving the applicant’s request for the relief for the payment of court fees from the complaints, without examination. The complaint was sent by post the day after the deadline, but the day before, the same letter has been sent by e-mail at 10:50 pm to the court. The VAC found the complaint to be void and rejected it. The applicant filed a complaint against such order.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its order of 21 December 2011 case file II FZ 447/11 agreed with the applicant, and repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The SAC issued very precedential opinion. The Court held that despite the legal loopholes it is possible to bring the pleadings via e-mail correspondence with the courts. The court also held that the date of the filing is a real moment of delivery of the e-mail message, which will be communicated to the recipient in the appropriate e-mail program. The Court noted that information about the confirmation of data transmission, which includes the date of delivery, is provided in the header of each e-mail message and it decides on timely filing of the pleadings. The Court stressed that the party to the proceedings before the administrative courts cannot bear the negative consequences of failure to implement the Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts of the relevant provisions concerning the submission of documents by electronic means. After that judgment a party can effectively bring to the administrative court every pleading by electronic means, including the complaint or a cassation complaint, despite the lack of a formal legal basis. The only problem is that the document lacks of a formal signature. But there is no obstacle to supplement it after the call issued by the court. If the applicant will send a complaint via e-mail at the last moment, it will be deemed as the effective delivery and filing. It only has to be signed in person after the call from the court in a specified deadline.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gdańsk in its order of 9 September 2010 case file II SA/Gd 573/10 held that the legal effectiveness of a letter brought by a party to an administrative court by electronic means must be confirmed by its later signature. This is the requirement provided in Article 46 § 1 pt 4 of the Act of 30 August 2002 on the Law on proceedings before administrative courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270, with subsequent amendments, which says that each letter must contain the signature of the party or its representative. This also applies to letters sent by electronic means. This ancient requirement is still in force even if there is the Polish Act of 17 February 2005 on the Informatization of Entities Performing Public Tasks – IEPPT – (in Polish: ustawa o informatyzacji działalności podmiotów realizujących zadania publiczne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 64, item 565 as amended, and the Act of 18 September 2001 on Electronic Signature – ESA – (in Polish: ustawa o podpisie elektronicznym), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw), No 130, item 1450, with subsequent amendments, because both acts did not introduce the electronic administrative proceedings or electronic docketing systems to the Polish procedure.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 8 April 2010, case file III SA/Wa 396/10, ruled that there is no legislative impediment to the existence of a mixed system for the storage of invoices, which consists of sending an invoice in paper and storage of its electronic copies with the option to print at the request of a legitimate authority. Such an interpretation was corroborated by teleological considerations, environmental and economic. According to the VAC the different findings would lead to a breach of the principle of proportionality, as set out in article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal C 83 of 30 March 2010. PDF files.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 10 December 2007 case file II SAB/Wa 86/07 held that the request filed in the electronic form (e-mail), that was not signed with the qualified electronic signature, is a legally sufficient request for disclosure of public information. Furthermore, the request for disclosure of public information does not initiate the administrative proceedings and it is not intended to finalize the proceedings with the refusal. It is logical and obvious that applicant’s intention is to obtain information and not to receive a negative decision. The request for public information can take any form, unless it is sufficiently clear what is requested.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Szczecin in its judgment of 16 December 2009 case file II SAB/Sz 148/09 held that the general principle set in article 61 of the Polish Constitution, is the access to information on the activities of public authorities. Any exceptions to this rule should be formulated explicitly, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the access.
1. A citizen shall have the right to obtain information on the activities of organs of public authority as well as persons discharging public functions. Such right shall also include receipt of information on the activities of self-governing economic or professional organs and other persons or organizational units relating to the field in which they perform the duties of public authorities and manage communal assets or property of the State Treasury.
2. The right to obtain information shall ensure access to documents and entry to sittings of collective organs of public authority formed by universal elections, with the opportunity to make sound and visual recordings.
3. Limitations upon the rights referred to in paras. 1 and 2 above, may be imposed by statute solely to protect freedoms and rights of other persons and economic subjects, public order, security or important economic interests of the State.
4. The procedure for the provision of information, referred to in paras. 1 and 2 above shall be specified by statute, and regarding the Sejm and the Senate by their rules of procedure.
Judgments of the Polish courts are information on public matters according to the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments.
Each information on public matters constitutes public information in the understanding of the Act and is subject to being made available on the basis of principles and under the provisions defined in this Act.
The Court held that according to article 6(1) point 4 letter (a) of the API, a judgment is an official document that should be made available according to the procedures and principles set in the API.
The following information is subject to being made available, in particular on:
4) public data, including:
a)contents and form of official documents, in particular:
– contents of administrative acts and other resolutions,
– documentation on the control and its effects as well as presentations, opinions, conclusions and statements of the entities having conducted the control,
The Court also noted that anyone is allowed to request the access to public information in electronic form or in the traditional way, on paper.
In 2008, the Polish media reported a story on the Polish Post which allegedly tested a system that scans envelopes and parcels. There were rumours that information gathered by such scanning could be used by the Internal Security Agency (ABW). ABW denied, but the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection has decided to investigate how the collected data are processed during the scan. Roman P. has requested the GIODO to make available the results of the investigation. Since Roman P. filed his request by phone and then by e-mail, the GIODO informed that it will consider the request only after it receives personal data of Roman P.
The GIODO based its opinion on the provisions of Article 63 § 3 of the Administrative Proceedings Code – APC – (in Polish: Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) of 14 June 1960, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 30, item 168, consolidated text of 9 October 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 98, item 1071 with subsequent amendments.
§ 1. Applications (requests, explanations, appeals, complaints) may be filed in writing or by telegram, telex, fax, email or by using the form available on the website of the competent public administration, allowing data entry into the communications system of the body, as well as verbally to the protocol.
§ 2 The application shall include at least an indication of the person from whom it comes, its address and it shall satisfy other requirements stipulated in the special regulations.
§ 3 The application submitted in writing or orally to the protocol shall be signed by the applicant, and also by an employee who made the protocol. When the application is filed by a person who can not or do not know how to make a signature, the application or a protocol is signed by other person authorized, by making a reference next to the signature.
The GIODO decided that the application filed by Roman P. shall indicate the person from whom it derives, its address and the scope of the request, otherwise, the request will not be examined.
Roman P. brought a complaint against this decisopn. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment case file II SAB/ Wa 57/09 ruled that the GIODO failed to act and ordered the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection to examine Roman P. request within 14 days because information he demanded, is deemed as the public information as defined in Article 5(2) of the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on Access to Public Information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments. The Court also ruled that arguments and findings to leave the application without further examination, because it was sent by e-mail, have no support in the APC.
Below, you will find a list of judgments on e-access to public information. By “e-access to public information” I mean all issues related to obtaining public information through or with the help of IT technology. You can find a more detailed discussion on each judgment under the link provided with the case file. All judgments are given in chronological order.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court of 15 March 2013 case file II SAB/Wa 513/12.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court of 18 December 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 335/12.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków of 26 November 2012 case file II SAB/KR 152/12.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 24 October 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 245/12.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków of 18 September 2012 case file II SAB/Kr 105/12.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 September 2012 case file I OSK 1203/12.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court of 13 July 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 30/12.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 June 2012 case file I OSK 730/12.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 June 2012 case file I OSK 666/12.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin of 20 March 2012 case file II SAB/Lu 10/12.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 3 February 2012 case file I OSK 2172/11.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice of 19 September 2011 case file IV SA/Gl 1002/11.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice of 2 August 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 86/07.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 3 August 2010 case file I OSK 1727/09.
– The judgment of the Regional Court Katowice Wchód in Katowice of 27 April 2010 case file I C 19/10.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Szczecin of 16 December 2009 case file II SAB/Sz 148/09.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw case file II SAB/Wa 57/09.
– The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 December 2007 case file II SAB/Wa 86/07.
– The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 March 2006 case file I OSK 190/06.
On 1 January 2010 the provisions of the Act of 9 January 2009, amending the Act – Civil Proceedings Code and other acts, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 26, item 156, came into force. This act introduced articles 50528 – 50537 which added to the CPC, in the First Book – the Trial, the title VII. Separate proceedings, Chapter VIII. Electronic proceedings, Chapter 1 Electronic admonition proceedings. In addition, the series of implementing regulations were published in the Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) on 31 December 2009, No 226. These regulations include inter alia:
– The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the procedure of setting up an account and the way of using of electronic signatures in the electronic admonition proceedings,
– The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the procedure of electronic serving in the electronic admonition proceedings,
– The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the method of electronically lodging of pleadings in the electronic admonition proceedings,
– The regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2009 on the action of the court relating to the enforceability of a judicial decision rendered in the electronic admonition proceedings.
So, since 1 January 2010, XVI Civil Department of the Regional Court in Lublin is formally and officialy the first Polish e-court.
The electronic admonition proceedings were introduced as a separate proceeding – having the nature of summons for payment – in cases where the facts are not complicated and there is no requirement of the evidence proceedings. The suit in the electronic admonition proceedings may be filed by a natural person or a person acting on behalf of the plaintiff (the agent, legal representative) who also has an account enabled at www.e-sad.gov.pl website and a valid certificate to create the electronic signature. The plaintiff’s pleadings have to be lodged electronically to produce legal effects as provided by the law with regard to pleadings filed in the court.
Electronic versions of the statement of claim and other pleadings may be signed with a qualified certificate issued by a Qualified Certification Center. A person who does not have a valid qualified certificate should request a certificate from the Certification Center EPU and download the certificate, before filing a suit.
The suit should also include plaintiff’s number in the Universal Electronic System for Registration of the Population – PESEL – (in Polish: Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludności) which is the national identification number used in Poland since 1979 or Tax Identification Number – NIP – (in Polish: Numer Identyfikacji Podatkowej) of the plaintiff other than a natural person, if the plaintiff is obliged to have one, and the number of the National Court Register (in Polish: Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy), or the number in the other appropriate register or other records. This is much stronger requirement when it comes to e-pleadings because such a requirement does not apply to actions brought in writing.
The plaintiff should indicate the evidence to support his/her claims in the petition. The evidence is not attached to the petition.
Court fees in the electronic admonition proceedings are paid only electronically via the payment service provider. Activities during the electronic admonition proceedings may be exercised by court’s referendary (division official).
The ruling issued in the electronic admonition proceedings is deemed as the writ of execution. The enforcement clause is only left in the computer system. After the decision issued during the electronic admonition proceedings becomes final, the enforcement clause is issued ex officio. The plaintiff, or person acting on behalf of the plaintiff, may submit a request for execution of the decision to the selected bailiff through the communications system of the e-court based on the electronic writ of execution received.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its order of 24 July 2007 case file I OPP 25/08 held that the letter that was brought by electronic means must be signed in person by a party or its representative to become legally effective, because only such signature meet the requirements under Article 46 § 1 pkt 4 of the Act of 30 August 2002 on the Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts – PBAC – (in Polish: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 153, item 1270, with subsequent amendments.
In accordance with Article 5(1) of the Act of 18 September 2001 on Electronic Signature – ESA – (in Polish: ustawa o podpisie elektronicznym), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 15 November 2001, No 130, item 1450, with subsequent amendments, the secure electronic signature verified by a qualified certificate which has legal effects specified in the Act, if it is filed during the validity of this certificate. The Chapter IX of that ESA contains provisions amending, inter alia, the Civil Code Article 60, Article 78 §1 and §2, allowing for state the will of a person in the cicil law relationship by the disclosure in electronic form. In addition, the Polish Act of 17 February 2005 on the Informatization of Entities Performing Public Tasks – IEPPT – (in Polish: ustawa o informatyzacji działalności podmiotów realizujących zadania publiczne), published in Journal of Laws No 64, item 565, in Article. 36 pt 3 and 5 introduced amendments of the provisions of the Administrative Proceedings Code, i.e. Article 57 § 5 pt 1 and Article 63 § 3a by allowing the opportunity to provide a request in the form of an electronic document. The above provisions apply only to the extent that the given Act governs.
In the Polish Act of 17 June 2004 on Complaint on the Infringement of the Right of a Party to be Beard in Court Proceedings without Undue Delay, published in Journal of Laws of 16 August 2004, and in the provisions of the PBAC, there are no equivalents of the abovecited provisions of the Civil Code and the APC, and the definition of electronic signatures does not exists in these acts. According to Article 2(3) of the IEPPT, the provisions of this Act shall not apply to administrative courts in the administrative proceedings. Consequently, in this case the Supreme Administrative Court was not obliged to use in the e-mail correspondnce of certificates that are referred to in the ESA.
The Internet Society Poland requested the President of the Social Insurance Institution – ZUS – (in Polish: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to disclose public information concerning technical specification of the KSI MAIL format, that is used in Płatnik software. Płatnik computer program is a free but not open source software that can be used to fill in and send a statement of payment declarations to the Social Insurance Institution. It works only with MS Windows operating systems.
The President of ZUS ruled that the Polish Act of 13 October 1998 on the Social Insurance System, consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2007 No. 11, item 74 as amended, obliges payers of social insurance to prepare documents including inter alia protected data, for instance sensitive data concerning health, in the electronic format and to transmit of such documents from Płatnik to ZUS. These data are personal data protected by law. Making them available could result in significant disruption in the supply KSI MAIL system, exposing to a breach of professional secrecy of ZUS and undermine the statutory exclusivity of the software provided by ZUS. Regardless of the abovementioned arguments, ZUS stated that KSI MAIL module is subject to business confidentiality and trade secrets due to the greement conducted between ZUS and Prokom Software S.A. on the design and implementation of a comprehensive system for social security. The agreement obliged ZUS to keep confidential all information relating to the transferred technology and solutions contained in KSI MAIL. ZUS based its final decision on the provisions of Article 5 of the the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on Access to Public Information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments.
Article 5. 1. The right to public information is subject to limitation to the extent and on the principles defined in the provisions on the protection of confidential information and on the protection of other secrets being statutorily protected.
2. The right to public information is subject to limitation in relation to privacy of a natural person or the secret of an entrepreneur. The limitation does not relate to the information on persons performing public functions, being connected with performing these functions, including the conditions of entrusting and performing these functions and in the event when a natural person or entrepreneur resigns from the right to which he was entitled to.
3. The access to public information on matters resolved before the state authorities, in particular in the administrative, criminal or civil proceedings cannot be limited, with the stipulation of it. 1 and 2, with respect to protection of the party’s interest, if the proceedings concern the public authorities or other entities performing public functions or persons performing public functions – in the scope of these functions or tasks.
4. The limitations of access to information on cases, defined in it. 3, do not breach the right to information on organisation and work of the bodies conducting proceedings, in particular on time, mode and place and the order of investigating cases.
ISOC filed a complaint before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. It emphasized that the technical specification of KSI MAIL is public information. Its publication broadens the possibility of fulfilling the duties of citizens who do not wish to invest in MS Windows. ISOC further argued that ZUS can not rely on contractual provisions, as it was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the API and that they are invalid. Also, ZUS made an erroneous interpretation of the law to rely on business secrets and trade secrets, because ISOC did not request the source code of the program, or other works protected by copyright or industrial property rights/patents.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its order of 30 January 2004 case file II SA 3732/03 held that this request concerns matters that are not subject to the administrative jurisdiction, but the civil courts which is in accordance with the provisions of Article 22(1) of the API.
1. The entity, which was denied the access to the public information in respect to its exclusion of its openness when quoting the protection of personal data, the right to privacy and the secret other than state, official, treasury or statistical secret, is entitled to put an action to the court for making such information available.
2. The entity, to which the exclusion of public information is related, has a legal interest in commencing as an accidental intervener on the defendant’s side.
3. The competent court for resolving the cases, defined in it. 1, is the district court with respect to the seat of the entity, which refused to make the public information available.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 March 2004 case file OSK 600/04 stated that the cassation complaint is unfounded and declared that, the term “when quoting” as used in Article 22(1) of the API, has such meaning that it is sufficient for the entity who posses requested information to invoke the mentioned in this provision object of protection, to exclude the possibility of control by an administrative court. The administrative court cannot control in this case the legality of the decision and investigate if the indicated condition actually occurred.
The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 18 September 2001 case file I ACa 898/00 held that e-voting is fully in accordance with the provisions of Article 411 of the Code of Commercial Companies – CCC – (in Polish: Kodeks spółek handlowych) of 15 September 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 94, item 1037 with subsequent amendments.
Art. 411. § 1. A share shall carry one vote at the general assembly.
§ 2. The voting right shall arise as of the date the share is paid for in full, unless the statutes provide otherwise.
§ 3. The statutes may limit the voting rights of shareholders controlling more than one-fifth of the total number of votes in the company. The limitation may apply only to the exercise of the voting right on shares above the limit of the votes provided for in the statutes.
§ 4. The statutes may also provide for cumulating of the votes held by the shareholders among whom there exists the relationship of dominance or dependence in the meaning of this or another act, as well as set out the rules for the reduction of the votes. In that case the votes attached to the shares of the dependent company or co-operative shall be added to the votes attached to the shares of the dominant company.
The Court decided that voting with the help of computer technology, meets the requirements of secrecy within the meaning of a provision providing shareholder unfettered opportunity to vote.