Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » Polish Act on access to public information

Archive for: Polish Act on access to public information

Access to public information, case I OSK 2026/11

May 23rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 5 February 2011, Bogusław Kler, a Polish patent and trade mark attorney, requested Anna Korbela, the President of the Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys, to disclose information concerning, inter alia, copy of the audio recording of the National Convention of Patent Attorneys that was held in 2010. The President answered that this request should be decided by the National Council of Patent Attorneys. Bogusław Kler filed a complaint for failure to act (administrative inaction). Mr Kler argued that the President did not properly consider his request or did not issue a refusal decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 July 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 142/11 obliged the President of the Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys to examine the application filed by Mr Kler. The Court found that the position of the President could not be accepted because it was is inconsistent. Once the President says she does not remain inactive, because the request was passed to do another, appropriate body, and then she finds that the requested information is not public information. Once the President announces that it hasn’t got the requested recordings, and then she states that Mr Kler may listen to them at the seat of the authority. The President filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 December 2011 case file I OSK 2026/11 dismissed it and ruled information about the activities of the proffesional self-government of the Polish patent attorneys is a public information which is indirectly interpreted from the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution, under whose self-governments may be created within a profession in which the public repose confidence, and such self-governments should concern themselves with the proper practice of such professions in accordance with, and for the purpose of protecting, the public interest. This simply means that the activities of the government and its bodies fail within the meaning of a public character or matters, and such information concerning these activities – has the nature of public information.

Access to public information, case XVI K 112/11

May 18th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Grzegorz Pluciński, the CEO of the Polish company Mainframe, filed a private accusation against Andrzej Machnacz who was the Director of the Centre of Information of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration in 2008-2010. It is probably the first case based on the provisions of Article 23 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.

Article 23. Whoever, contrary to the obligation weighing on him, shall not make the public information available, is subject to fine, penalty of restricted liberty or penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

Mr Pluciński argued that the Director was obliged to disclose a contract between the Centre and IBM. The sum of the contract was below 38.000 PLN which allowed for its conclusion without meeting the conditions of the Polish Act on Public Procurement. During the trail before the Regional Court for Warszawa Mokotów, the Director argued that the request for disclosure of public information that was filed by Mainframe was worded too broadly and did not relate to this contract. Mr Machnacz also argued that he did not take the refusal decsion, and only accepted suggestions of his employees, and after consultation with outside law firm. However, only two signatures were available under this decision. According to the provisions of Article 16(2) of the API, the justification of the decision on the refusal of making the information available should also include the names, surnames, and these persons’ functions, who took decision under the procedure on making the information available and marking the entities, in relation to whose goods defined in Article 5, it. 2, the decision on the refusal to make information available was issued. The trial has been postponed until June 2012.

Access to public information, case I OSK 2265/11

May 11th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish company requested the Ministry of the Interior and Administration (MIA), and Director of the Centre of Information of MIA, to disclose all legal opinions prepared by the Polish Information Processing Society that concerned IT systems created by the Ministry. The Director provided all the requested documents, however the Ministry only asked the Company to clarify the request in the letter sent on October 2009. The Company filed a complaint for failure to act, claiming administrative inaction in its case. The Ministry also argued that the requested information cannot be disclosed because such expert opinions are copyrighted materials, and as such, are not deemed as public information.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 February 2010 case file II SAB/Wa 155/09 agreed with the Company and ordered the MIA to disclose requested information. The Court ruled that such expertises are public information, so they should be disclosed, unless they contain secret information protected by law. The Minister of MIA filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 August 2010 case file I OSK 757/10 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. However, the SAC only discussed and held that the VAC did not examine whether there was administrative inaction of the MIA. The Court did not examine the allegation that there was a breach of regulations 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 Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 September 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 174/11 was bound by the interpretation of the SAC, and decided that there was administrative inaction. The Minister of the Interior and Administration, once again filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 March 2012 case file I OSK 2265/11 dismissed it. The SAC held that if the Minister found that it had the requested information, while it also concluded that there are obstacles to the disclose because of the circumstances set out in Article 5 of the API, or other provisions of specific laws, it was obliged to initiate ex officio proceedings on the refusal to disclose information. The refusal should be issued as an administrative decision only. The lack of such a decision was deemed as administrative inaction, subject to a complaint. The letter sent by the Minister on October 2009 was clearly not an administrative decision. The SAC reminded that the administrative decision should obligatory contain: the name of public authority, date, identity of the party or parties, the legal basis on which the decision was issued, the conclusion and findings, factual and legal grounds, instruction, whether and how to file an appeal against the decision, the signature with the name, surname and position of the person authorized to issue a given decision. Although the letter was signed and affixed with the seal by the Deputy Director of Administration and Finance Office of the MIA, is was not mentioned that the Director acted under the authority of the Ministry. The letter did not contain a ruling on the request of the Company, but on the contrary – the Director explicitly stated that the request was not recognized in accordance with that Act on access to public information. The Letter had no form of a decision, it did not include the instruction, whether and how to file an appeal against it. The Court decided that this letter was purely information message sent on paper. The Polish legislature did not formulate any legal definition of “access to public information”, or the very concept of public information, both in the Polish act on access to public information or in any other legal act. However, Article 1 of the API ab initio provides that 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. According to legal commentators, a public matter is the activity of both public authorities, economic and professional self-government bodies that exercise tasks of official authority and the management of public property. A specific individual case of a person, especially of a private nature, is not deemed as public matters. The access to administrative files falls Within the catalog of public information. Public information is therefore the content of any document relating to public authority. These range from documents produced by government bodies, as well as those used in the execution of the tasks provided for by law, even if they do not come directly from the authorities. Such opinion was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 30 October 2002 case file II SA 1956/02, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Opole in its judgment of 17 January 2008 case file II SAB/Op 20/07, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgmet of 16 July 2008 case file II SA/Wa 721/08, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgmet of 26 June 2008 case file II SA/Wa 111/08. The criterion for determining the disclosure and availability of the documents under the API is not their authorship, but the opinion that they are used to carry out public duties, and were prepared at the request of public authorities, when at the same time, their content and does not violate the privacy of an individual or trade secrets of business. It is not about the disposal of copyright, but about access to the content of the document that was created on behalf of the public authority to carry out public duties. Such opinion was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 July 2011 case file I OSK 667/11, by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 December 2010 case file I OSK 1774/10, by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 18 September 2008 case file I OSK 315/08, by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 February 2007 case file I OSK 517/06. Not all opinions or expertise, that were created by a public authority or on behalf of public authorities, are public information. The classification of legal opinion in documents that are available under the API is determined by the purpose for which it was prepared. A legal opinion prepared for the public authority on the merits of initiating future proceedings in a particular civil case does not constitute public information for the purposes of Article 1 of the API. It was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 June 2009 case file I OSK 89/09. An expertise that specifically relate to a given legislative proposal for which the legislative process continues, are deemed as public information. These documents relate to the facts, of such, is the legislative proposal submitted to the competent authority in the legislative procedure. It was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 January 2012 case file I OSK 2130/11. If a disclosure of public information threatens the common or individual interests, there is the possibility to restrict the access to such information by refusing its disclousure by an administrative decision that should be based on the provisions of Article 16 of the API. The expertise prepared by the Polish Information Processing Society for the Ministry, associated with the formation by that authority of systems, and the preparation of examinations for persons applying for a certificate of qualification for the controllers and communication systems, satisfy the conditions of public information, because they concern the implementation of tasks by the public authority. If the the expertise concerned computerization and informatization of the public sphere and involved the expenditure of public funds, therefore it is public information, because it refers to the public affairs, which is the issue of computer software/programs in the implementation of public tasks, and how they are used and implemented, the implementation and impact of these tasks and information on public property, including property of the State Treasury.

There was also a specific issue of the expropriation of copyright for public purpose. Article 1 of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights provides that the subject of copyright should be any manifestation of creative activity of individual nature, established in any form, irrespective of its value, purpose or form of expression (work). Opinions and expertise made by qualified persons or entities meet the statutory definition. According to Article 4 of the ARNR, the copyright should not apply to legislative acts and their official drafts, official documents, materials, logos and symbols. Expertises commissioned by the Ministry, are official documents within the meaning of the Article 4(2) of the ARNR. They are used as a servant in decision-making process of the executive authority and are not the subject of copyright. The Polish Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court agree that the official documents are materials that come from the office or other state institution or concerned official matters, or was the result of application of the official proceedings. As it was decided by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 26 September 2001 case file IV CKN 458/00, and by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 February 1997 case file I SA/Kr 1062/96. The effectiveness of social control and supervision over the information used on completion of assigned tasks of public authority correspond with such understanding of the relationship between the provisions of Article 1 of the API and Article of the ARNR. Such opinion was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 January 2012 case file I OSK 2130/11. Hence, the definition of an official document, provided in Article 6(2) of the API does not provide a basis for restricting access to public information, defined in the Article 1(1) of the API, including the catalog of examples contained in Article 6(1) of the API.

Access to public information, case I OSK 1550/11

May 7th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 22 November 2010, Bogusław Kler, a Polish patent and trade mark attorney, requested the President of the Polish Patent Office to disclose public information concerning the word trade mark PRINCE POLO R-148617, in order to know, whether during the examination, the trade mark POLO R-69429, or other marks containing this word were taken into account, and in particular, if the expert who was proceeding and examining the trade mark application, noted and listed any signs with the word “polo” in the examination card of the trade mark PRINCE POLO R-148617. In addition, Mr Kler requested for information on whether in a possible conflict between “Prince Polo” and the earlier “POLO” signs, the examiner considered any settlement actions of the owners of such trade marks, indicating that he is not requesting the full texts of documents, but seeking to confirm whether such documents if any, were submitted to the trade mark file and they were used in the assessment for the trade mark PRINCE POLO.

The President of the PPO expressed the opinion that the examination card of the trade mark PRINCE POLO R-148617 is not deemed as public information, because it is not directed the parties of the proceedings, and therefore it cannot be disclosed. With regard to information on materials concerning possible settlement between the trademark owners, the President explained that such information can be obtained by directly asking the entitled entities. At the same time, the President pointed out that decisions on the granting of exclusive rights belong to independent experts, and the requested filed by Mr Kler can be read as an unfounded and unjustifiable attempt to control of examinations conducted by experts and the procedures for the granting of exclusive rights. The President argued that such control process of the legality of decisions undertaken by the Polish Patent Office falls within the competence of administrative courts. The method of preparing and filing of the examination card of a trade mark is not regulated in any legislation being in force. Information to be included in it depends on the expert. The examination card is somehow a reflection of thinking of a person who was handling a given case.

Bogusław Kler filed a complaint for failure to act (administrative inaction). Mr Kler argued that the President of the PPO did not consider his request or did not issue a refusal decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 May 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 88/11 dismissed the complaint. The VAC held that information requested by Mr Kler is not public, in particular, these are not public data. The Court held that the examination card is not an official document since it does not contain a declaration of will/intent or knowledge of a public official. Based on the card, it is not possible to unambiguously determine conditions, that were followed by the authority granting the right of protection for a trade mark. The card is a working internal document of the PPO, which provides information of operational activities aimed at a comprehensive assessment and examination of the validity and legitimacy for granting the protection of the sign applied for. Mr Kler filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 1 December 2011 case file I OSK 1550/11 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. The SAC held that according the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, a citizen should have the right to obtain information on the activities of organs of public authority as well as persons discharging public functions. Such right should 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. Limitations upon the right of information may be imposed by the Act solely to protect freedoms and rights of other persons and economic subjects, public order, security or important economic interests of the State. The principle of the “right to information” provided in the Constitution sets basic rules of interpretation of this right. It is a constitutional right, therefore, the law defining the procedures for access to information should be interpreted broadly, and any exceptions to this right should be construed and interpreted narrowly. This implies the use in relation to these acts of interpretation, which favor expanding rather than narrowing the obligation to disclose information. The enumeration, what is deemed as public information, is provided in the Polish Act on Access to Public Information, however this enumeration includes exemplary situations, and it does not cover all cases in which information is disclosed. The Court noted that public information is each information or data that was created or referred to the widely defined public authorities, or was created or referred to other entities performing public functions in the execution of tasks of public authority. The Supreme Administrative Court shared the view that all files of entire administrative proceedings conducted by a public authority, constitutes public information – including both documents created and held by the authority in connection with a particular case. Therefore, the Court held that, in principle, all that is in the file of the proceedings, regardless of whether it will be a public document or private, should be disclosed. It does not matter whether the document in the file is an “internal” or “working”. Even giving up the assumption that the whole proceedings constitute public information, it cannot be excluded that given documents from these files have such nature. In each case, every request for disclosure of public information requires a detailed analysis. Only as a result of such analysis, the authority should decide whether the requested information is public, followed by what standards govern the procedure of its disclosure.

Access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 295/11

December 18th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Association of Leaders of Local Civic Groups (SLLGO) requested the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to disclose the correspondence, including e-mails, of members of the Council of Ministers and their assistants, that concerned the revision 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 Prime Minister refused, arguing that e-mails are not public information, because it is internal correspondence. The SSLGO filed a complaint for failure to act.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 1 December 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 295/11 agreed with the SSLGO and decided that e-mail correspondence in this case was not private, but it should be deemed as public information and properly disclosed as it was requested by the Association, because it concerned the amendment to the API. The Court noted that such e-mails related to public affairs, this issue was previously mentioned by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 January 2004 case file II SAB 364/0.

Copyright law, case I OSK 678/11

November 3rd, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of the story described in “Copyright law, case II SAB/Łd 53/10“. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 July 2011 case file I OSK 678/11 ruled that copyrighted works in the form of test questions, if they are used for the state exam, become official documents, and the unused questions, which are the so-called “pool of questions” are deemed as documentary material for the purposes of Article 4(2) of the Polish Act of 4 February 1994 on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 90, item 631, with subsequent amendments.

Art. 4. The following shall not be protected by copyright:
(1) normative texts and the drafts thereof,
(2) official documents, documentary material, devices and symbols,
(3) descriptions of patents and other protection titles,
(4) mere news items.

The court emphasized that different types of materials that are in the possession of the public bodies are not public information, because their content (intellectual property content) is not used or was not used in dealing with any of the public cases, and thus such material did not acquire the characteristics of official documents. Therefore, the argument raised in the cassation complaint that a particular set of questions or a single question from the pool of questions, that was not used in the state exam should be disclosed, was completely groundless.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Access to public information, case I OSK 667/11

October 23rd, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The mayor of the Polish town Rabka-Zdrój refused to disclose land-use planning maps. The request was filed according to the provisions 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 mayor decided that copyright law does not allow for the disclosure, because these maps were created by the Studio of Architecture and Urban Design from Kraków. The applicant filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków in its judgment of 22 November 2010 case file II SAB/Kr 114/10 ordered to provide the requested information. The Mayor filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 15 July 2011 case file I OSK 667/11 dismissed it, and held that as public information are deemed not only documents that were directly created/edited and produced by a public authority, but such a character have also documents that the authority uses to carry out the tasks entrusted to the law, even if the copyrights belong to another entity. The most important is the fact, that these documents are used to carry out public tasks by certain authorities and have been produced on behalf of those bodies. Therefore, it is not about exercising copyrights, but about the access to the content of the document that was created on behalf of public administration in order to carry out public tasks. The SAC noted that this opinion is already established in the case law of administrative courts for many years. For instance, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative court of 9 February 2007 case file I OSK 517/06, the judgment of the SAC of 7 December 2010 case file I OSK 1774/10, or the judgment of the SAC of 18 September 2008 case file I OSK 315/08.

In this case, the Court had no doubt that the maps were made in order to perform a specific public task, and were commissioned by public administration body. Its disclosure is not deemed as exercise of the copyright, but as the implementation of the right to access public information. If, there were statutory barriers to disclose such information in a certain way or in a particular form, or there were statutory grounds for refusal of access to public information, the Mayor was obliged to deal with the request in the form of process. However, the lack of disclosure, and lack of procedural decisions in this matter meant, that it was administrative inaction.

E-access to public information, case IV SAB/Gl 36/11

August 24th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice in its judgment of 2 August 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 86/07, held that the request filed in the electronic form i.e via e-mail, is a sufficient request for disclosure of public information. The Court repeated the rule that the request for disclosure of public information can take any form, unless it is sufficiently clear what is requested. The VAC ruled that in order to facilitate the submission of applications, public bodies may prepare their own forms, but the disclosure of public information can not be conditional, based on which form such a request is made.

Copyright law, case I OSK 1975/10

June 13th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Minister of Infrastructure did not respond to the request of a Polish company for disclosure of public information in the form of directory of multiple choice questions for the initial qualification tests for categories C1, C1 + E, C, C + E of driving license. The company filed a complaint of failure to act. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its order of 25 August 2010 case file II SAB/Wa 150/10 dismissed the complaint. The Company decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its order of 21 December 2010 case file I OSK 1975/10 dismissed it. The Court supported the view, in which an official document was correctly distinguished from an official documentary material. While the official document will be public information, the documentary material will not has such status, because it lacks formality/officiality features (it was not used by the official body in a given case and it was not directed outside that body). The court held that a set of questions would be used to carry out undefined tests, therefore, such questions are undoubtedly abstract in nature and do not constitute an official document. In this case, the company had not requested the disclosure of a particular form of the test – a set of questions used in a particular exam, and the subject of the request was entire collection of materials (a series of questions). In the opinion of the court such materials do not constitute public information under the 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.

Article 1.1 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.
2. The provisions of the Act shall not breach the provisions of other acts defining different principles and the mode of access to the information being public information.

The Court noted that only when these questions are used in a particular case, i.e. they are arranged, and used in a specific set of questions designed to check the level of knowledge of applicants for categories C1, C1 + E, C, C + E, they lose their abstract characteristic and become public information, however, such situation did not occur in this case.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case II SAB/Łd 53/10

June 11th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź in its judgment of 20 December 2010 case file II SAB/Łd 53/10 ruled that the fact that different authors create questions from different fields of medicine for the National Specialist Examination, and these questions are copyrightable works within the meaning of the Article 1(1) of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights, does not exclude the possibility that the Authority could create, on the basis of these works, the examination test that will be used to carry out the National Specialist Examination.

Article 1(1). The subject matter of copyright is any expression of creative activity having individual character and manifested in any material form, regardless of the value, intended purpose and manner of expression thereof (work).

Art. 4. The following shall not be protected by copyright:
(1) normative texts and the drafts thereof,
(2) official documents, documentary material, devices and symbols,

Therefore, the works used for the state examination are deemed as official documents and the unused questions which are known as the “pool of questions” are official documentary materials within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the ARNR.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Access to public information, case III SAB/ Lu 1/09

May 13th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish citizen requested the President of one of the Regional courts to disclose the calendar of causes that concerned his case. The President informed that the calendar of causes cannot be disclosed, because the regulation on the work of common courts does not permit for such disclosure after the calendar is deposited in the court’s records. Jan H. filed a complaint for failure to act, claiming President’s inaction in his case.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin in its judgment of 2 July 2009 case file III SAB/Lu 1/09 held that the regional court is a public authority under 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, and is therefore obliged to provide public information. Jan H. has the right to request the disclosure of public information, because everyone has that right, and what’s more important, the person exercising the right to public information is not required to demonstrate his or her legal or factual interest. The calendar of cases and dockets includes a list of cases that are heard in a given day by a court in a particular composition, and as such is deemed as public information, that concerns the work and operation of a public authority, which in this case, was the Regional court. Thus, the citizen’s request has to be considered in terms of request for public information. The VAC noted that internal regulations on the office work cannot be the basis on deciding on civil rights.

Access to public information, case V Ca 2388/10

November 9th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Professor Janusz S. Bień requested the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences to disclose public information on the license agreement, concerning the online version of the Dictionary of the Polish language of the sixteenth century. The request was filed under 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. Mr Bień did not receive the requested information, but also was not denied this information in the form of an administrative decision. As a result, prof. Bień brought an action for failure to act. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, in its judgment of 18 June, 2009 case file II SAB/Wa 14/09 ordered the Director of the Institute of Literary Research to examine the request.

On 13 August 2009, the Institute of Literary Research refused to provide requested public information because of the secret of the entrepreneur. The basis for refusal was Article 5(2) of the API.

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.

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. Professor decided to bring an action.

The Regional Court for Warszawa Śródmieście I Civil Division in its judgment of 12 March 2010 case file I C 1305/09, dismissed the action because the prof. Bien has not demonstrated that he is legally entitled to obtain a photocopy of the disputed agreement. The Court arbitrarily assumed that as a basis for disclose of a photocopy of the disputed agreement should be used Article 222 § 1 of the Civil Code governing the claim of the owner of a thing against the person who actually possess it (rei vindicatio).

Article 222. § 1. The owner may demand of a person who has actual control of a thing to release that thing to him unless that person has the right, effective with respect to the owner, to control the thing.
§ 2. The owner shall have the right to claim restitution of his lawful position and abstention from infringements of law, against a person who infringes his ownership otherwise than by depriving the owner of the actual control of a thing.

Professor Bień appealed. The District Court in Warsaw, V Civil Division, in its judgment of 9 November 2010 case file V Ca 2388/10, annulled the contested judgment and ordered Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences to provide photocopies of the agreement.

Access to public information, case II SAB/Lu 44/10

October 26th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A resident of Lubartów town has requested the mayor to deliver a photocopy of the legal opinion on a referendum on the development of the local square. The mayor refused on the grounds that the opinion is not public information within the meaning 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.

Article 1.1 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.
2. The provisions of the Act shall not breach the provisions of other acts defining different principles and the mode of access to the information being public information.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin in its judgment of 17 August 2010 case file II SAB/Lu 44/10, decided on the failure to act against the mayor of Lubartow. The Court ruled that a legal opinion prepared for a particular case or cases, serving as an internal document dealing with issues and tasks of the authority is public information. Such opinion applies to the facts had been made in the organizational structure of the authority, it concerns its activities, and therefore in accordance with Article 1(1) of the API is deemed as public information. The court noted also that the obligation to provide public information arises only if it was not previously available and does not function in public circulation, and the person concerned cannot familiarize with it otherwise than by making a request for making the public information available.

Categories: Art. 1(1) API | Art. 10 API | Art. 14 API | Polish Act on access to public information | Voivodeship Administrative Court.

Personal data protection, case I OSK 592/10

September 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights requested the Internal Security Agency (in Polish: Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego – ABW) to provide information on operational activities conducted in the form of operational control. The ABW refused to provide such information and argued that such information on operational control, without exception, and the distinction between statistical and other information, is a state secret and are marked “top secret”. The Foundation filed a complaint for failure to act.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 12 January 2010 case file II SAB/Wa 152/09 held that the ABW did not provide information as requested, nor has issued a proper refusal. therefore, the ABW failed to act properly, The VAC has committed the Head of the Internal Security Agency to proceed the application of Helsinki Foundation of 1 June 2009, either by providing relevant information or by issuing a decision to refuse, in accordance with Article 16(1) 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, which will allow the Foundation to use legal means, including the right to bring an action in the courts because of the reason for the refusal.

Article 16. 1. The refusal to make the public information available and discontinuation of proceedings to make the information available in the case defined in Article 14, it. 2 by the body of public authority takes place by means of a decision.
2. In relation to the decision, defined in it. 1, the provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings shall apply, however:
1) the appellation from the decision is investigated within 14 days,
2) the justification of the decision on the refusal of making the information available includes also the names, surnames, and these persons’ functions, who took decision under the procedure on making the information available and marking the entities, in relation to whose goods, defined in Article 5, it. 2, the decision on the refusal to make information available was issued.

The Head of the Internal Security Agency filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 July 2010 case file I OSK 592/10 held that the case-law of administrative courts presents the view that the complaint on the failure to act by the public authority during the proceedings for access to public information may be filed not only against the so-called “silence” of the authority, but also in a situation in which the dispute arose between the applicant and the addressee as to the nature of the information requested. However, the SAC was not able determine what is the nature of the information requested.

Internet domains, case I ACa 1334/07

June 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The District Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 August 2007, case file XVI GC 756/06 dismissed the complaint filed by “Euro–net” sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the Court of Conciliation for Internet Domains at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications of 23 March 2006 case file 22/05/PA in which the Court of Conciliation dismissed the “Euro-net” complaint against Rafał Falęcki in case of infringement of trade mark rights and unfair competition delict/tort concerning eurortv.com.pl domain name.

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 April 2008 case file I ACa 1334/07 dismissed the appeal, although it also found that some of the allegations included in the complaint proved to be accurate. The Court of Conciliation violated the adversarial rule because it has conducted an investigation of evidence ex officio, by looking on web pages and performing a search for disputed words “euro” and “rtv” in Google. The Court has not made any survey protocol or notes. This was made personally by the arbitrator without a request of both parties, however, the parties have not raised any comment to that evidence. The Court of Conciliation should issue the provision of evidence, indicating the date and place to carry out, so the parties could participate in this investigation. However, the appeal did not contain any allegations as to the veracity of the abovementioned evidence. The court may conduct investigation of evidence ex officio and on its own initiative but it should do it only in situations of an exceptional nature.

The Appellate Court did not agree with the “Euro-net” that the circumstances in which the investigation of evidence was conducted required special knowledge, and therefore should be subject to expert opinion. The Court of Conciliation made only a visual overview of the web pages of the plaintiff and the defendant, to which it was not necessary to posses special knowledge in the field of IT. The Appellate Court held that since the issue of the case was the infringement of “Euro-net” rights of protection for trade marks that was allegedly made by Rafał Falęcki in the Internet, therefore the inspection of his websites was sufficient way to determine whether and how the defendant used plaintiff’s trademarks. The expertise is not needed for such action, because a regular Internet user usually does not have such knowledge. It was a regular Internet user who could be mislead, in particular by a risk of associating the domain name with a registered trade marks, as defined in article 296(2)(ii) of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with subsequent amendments.

2. Infringement of the right of protection for a trademark consists of unlawful use in the course of trade of:
(ii) a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in respect of identical or similar goods, if a likelihood of misleading the public, including in particular a risk of associating the trademark with a registered trademark, exists;

However, there were no doubts for the Court that provisions of article 153 of the IPL mean that one cannot infringe the protection rights for a trade mark in the Internet.

Article 153
1. The right of protection shall confer the exclusive right to use the trademark for profit or for professional purposes throughout the territory of the Republic of Poland.
2. The term of the right of protection shall be 10 years counted from the date of filing of a trademark application with the Patent Office.
3. The term of protection may, at the request of the right holder, be extended for subsequent ten-year periods in respect of all or of a part of the goods.
4. The request referred to in paragraph (3) shall be submitted before the expiration of a running protection period, however not earlier than one year before the expiration thereof. The request shall be submitted together with the payment of a due protection fee.
5. The request referred to in paragraph (3) may also be submitted, against payment of an additional fee, within six months after the expiration of a protection period. The said time limit shall be non-restorable.
6. The Patent Office shall make a decision on refusal to extend the term of protection for a trademark, where the request has been submitted after the expiration of the time limit referred to in paragraph (5) or the due fees referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) have not been paid.

According to the Court, one cannot use signs (or its elements) or similar trade marks, in its Internet domain names, if its business deals with selling the same group of products. There was no question that the mentioned above rule belongs to the fundamental socio-economic principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland. However, in this case, such conditions were not met, bacuse all signs constituting “Euro-net” trade marks and used by Rafał Falęcki lack distinctive character, there was no risk of confusion, and there existed the exclusion of protection of signs as set out in article 156(1)(ii) of the IPL.

1. The right of protection shall not entitle the right holder to prohibit third parties from using, in the course of trade:
(ii) indications concerning, in particular, the features and characteristics of goods, the kind, quantity, quality, intended purpose, origin, the time of production or of expiration of usability period,

There is one thing I wanted to add. I asked the Appellate Court in Warsaw to send me the judgment via e-mail. My request was based on the Polish Act on access to public information. On 14 June 2010 I received an e-mail from the Court.

W związku z wnioskiem z dnia 11 czerwca 2010 r. o udostępnienie informacji publicznej uprzejmie informuję, że opłata za udostępnienie treści wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 16 kwietnia 2008 r. w sprawie o sygn. akt I ACa 1334/07 wraz z uzasadnieniem – zgodnie z Zarządzeniem Nr 130/09 Prezesa Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 31 lipca 2009 r. – wynosi 8 zł (1 zł za stronę) – w wersji elektronicznej. Opłatę można uiścić w kasie Sądu, znakami sądowymi lub przelewem bankowym na konto Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie nr 93 1010 1010 0404 1322 3100 0000 z dopiskiem ” informacja publiczna Adm. 0137-119/10″.

I was informed that according to the Decree No 130/09 of the President of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 31 July 2009, the fee for access to the judgment – is 8 PLN (1 PLN per page) – in the electronic version. I had no time to argue so I decided to pay. However, as you may remember from my post entitled “E-access to public information, case I C 19/10“, price-lists and flat-rate charges for making the public information available, may violate the provisions of the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information.

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

E-access to public information, case I C 19/10

April 29th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Grzegorz W. made a request for access to minutes of meetings of the audit committee of the city council. He requested that the information was sent to his home address. The Municipality and City Czerwionka – Leszczyny replied that it is possible to get acquaint with the requested documents in their virtual version that was published in the Bulletin of Public Information and there was also an option to obtain a photocopy or computer file upon application and payment of a fee based on the provisions of article 1(1) of the the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with later 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.

Grzegorz W. informed the Municipality and City Czerwionka – Leszczyny that he expects to receive the documents in the form of photocopies. Documents were sent along with request for payment based on the rules issued by the Mayor on charges for making the public information available. Grzegorz W. refused to pay and urged the Mayor to amend the ordinance in question as it was incompatible with articles 7(2) and 15(2) of the API.

Article 7. 1. Making public information available takes place by means of:
1) announcing public information, including official documents, in the Public Information Bulletin, mentioned in Article 8,
2) making it available, mentioned in Articles 10 and 11,
3) entrance into the meetings of the bodies, defined in Article 3, it. 1, point 3, and making the materials available, including the audio-visual and tele-communicating, documenting these meetings.
2. Access to public information is free, with the stipulation of Article 15.

(…)

Article 15. 1. If as a result of making public information on the petition, defined in Article 10, it. 1, the entity obliged to do this, is to incur the additional costs connected with the method defined in the petition of a method of making it available or necessity to transform the information in the form pointed in the petition, this entity is entitled to the payment from the petitioner covering these costs.
2. The entity, defined in it. 1, within 14 days of submitting the petition, shall notify the petitioner of the amount of the payment. Making the information available in accordance with the petition takes place after the expiration of the period of 14 days of notifying the petitioner unless the petitioner makes within this period the change in the petition in the scope of method and form of making this information available or withdraw the petition.

After very active exchange of letters and calls between both parties, the case went to court. On 7 October 2009, the Referee in the Regional Court Katowice Wchód in Katowice made the order in the admonition proceedings, case file I Nc 1140/09/13 and adjudged Grzegorz W. to pay 14,58 PLN plus costs of proceedings. Grzegorz W., filed an objection against the order and the Municipality and City Czerwionka – Leszczyny sustained their claims. The Regional Court Katowice Wchód in Katowice in a judgment of 27 April 2010, case file I C 19/10, PDF file, rejected all claims filed by the Municipality and City Czerwionka – Leszczyny. The Court held that article 7(2) of the API introduces the principle of free access to public information. All exceptions to this rule are provided in article 15(2) of the API. There are only two exceptions to the principle of free access. The first concerns the method (form) of making the information available and the second concerns a situation in which additional costs are associated with the transformation of the requested information. According to the Court, the forms should be understood by both the particular shape of the information held, which requires additional effort (for instance digitization and processing of documents held by the entity) and as a special way of making such information available. The Court also noted that the entity making the information available is obliged to ensure the possibility of copying of public information or its printout or sending the public information or transferring it to the appropriate, commonly used information carrier. The Court held that the Municipality and City Czerwionka – Leszczyny should also demonstrate that it had incurred additional costs. Finally, the Court also held that making the price-lists and introducing flat-rate charges for making the public information available, violates the provisions of the API because each price-list/tariff is a form of lump sum and this does not correspond to the essence of the costs actually incurred. Article 15(1) of the API indicates the additional costs and therefore the costs that were actually incurred by a given entity.

See also my post entitled “Polish case law on e-access to public information“.

Access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 155/09

March 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 4 February 2010 case file II SAB/Wa 155/09 held that it should be noted that the status of public information is not only afforded to documents directly prepared/edited and technically produced by a public authority, but also to those whose the authority uses to carry out the tasks specified by the law, even when the copyrights belong to another entity. So therefore as documents being the subject of disclosure of public information as defined in the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments, should be deemed the expertises/opinions made for the authority that is required to make the public information available, if such documents are used to perform its task, even if the copyright on these opinions belong to other entities.

The Court held that the overriding principle related to disclosure of public information, is to provide such information. The problem of subsequent use of the documents covered by copyright is not governed by the API, but may be subject to any claims as defined by copyright law and civil law. However, this issue cannot justify the refusal to disclose public information, because the only limits are rules on secrets protected by law. In this case, a natural person requested the expertise prepared for the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration, in connection with the creation by this body of IT systems. Such documents in the light of the above-mentioned conclusions are deemed as public information, and therefore should be disclosed, if there is no data that are secrecy protected by law.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 86/07

February 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

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.

See also “Polish case law on e-access to public information” and “E-signatures in Poland“.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/Sz 148/09

February 20th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

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.

Article 61
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.

Article 6(1)
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.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/ Wa 57/09

February 18th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

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, 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 to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The VAC in a 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) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with later 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.