Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 1(1) API

Access to public information, case I OSK 2093/14

November 9th, 2015, Tomasz Rychlicki

The ePaństwo Foundation requested the President of the Supreme Court to disclose information on agreements entered between the Supreme Court and the commercial publishers of case-law of the Supreme Court. First, the President refused to initiate proceedings in this case. The Foundation filed a complaint against such order. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 January 2012 case file II SA/Wa 2259/11 repealed it, and the President filed a cassation complaint that was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 September 2012 case file I OSK 916/12. The First President of the Supreme Court in its letter of 6 December 2012 informed the Foundation that the requested information is not public. The Foundation filed a complaint against the inactivity of the President. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 February 2014 case file II SAB/Wa 443/13 obliged the President to consider the request. The President filed a cassation comaplaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 30 September 2015 case file I OSK 2093/14 dismissed it and ruled that the First President of the Polish Supreme Court has to disclose the requested information. In the meantime, someone else has obtained all the requested agreements and made their copies available online.

Personal data protection, I CSK 190/12

August 29th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 8 November 2012 case file I CSK 190/12 held that without a doubt, the first name and surname constitute personal data of the individual, therefore, the important question arose, whether they belong to the scope of the individual’s privacy as understood in the provisions of 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.

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.

Previous opinions of the Supreme Court on the relationship between the right to protect of personal data and the right to privacy are not clear. They were formulated mainly from the point of view of the protection of personal interests as defined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments.

Article 23
The personal interests of a human being, in particular to health, dignity, freedom, freedom of conscience, surname or pseudonym, image, secrecy of correspondence, inviolability of home, and scientific, artistic, inventor’s and rationalizing achievements, shall be protected by civil law independent of protection envisaged in other provisions.

Article 24
§ 1 The person whose personal rights are threatened by someone else’s action, may require the desist of that action, unless it is not illegal. In the event of the infringement one may also require, the person who committed the violation, to fulfill the actions necessary to remove its effects, in particular, to make a statement of the relevant content and appropriate format. According to the conditions laid down in the Code one may also require monetary compensation or payment of an appropriate amount of money for a social purpose indicated.
§ 2 If as the result of a breach of personal rights one has suffered pecuniary prejudice, the aggrieved person may claim compensation based on general principles.
§ 3 The above shall not prejudice the entitlements provided by other regulations, in particular in copyright law and the patent (invention) law.

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 15 February 2008 case file I CSK 358/07 (published in OSNC 2009, no. 4, item 63) ruled that legal commentators and case law of the Constitutional Court agree that the right to protect of personal data is derived directly from personal rights such as human dignity and the right to privacy, citing judgments of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal of 19 February 2002 case file U 3/01 (published in OTK-A 2002, no. 1, item 3) and of 12 November 2002 case file SK 40/01 (published in OTK-A 2002, no. 6, item 81). Nowadays, the collection and processing of the personal data is technically relatively simple, therefore it is necessary to protect a person against uncontrolled collection and use of his or her personal data, often without the contribution or even awareness of the person concerned. For these reasons, the legislator specifically regulated the issues of data collection, processing, use and protection of personal data in the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments. While interpreting its provisions, one cannot ignore the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and its preamble that explicitly states that data-processing systems are designed to serve man, whereas they must, whatever the nationality or residence of natural persons, respect their fundamental rights and freedoms, notably the right to privacy. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 28 April 2004 III CK 442/02 (unpublished) stressed that when assessing whether there has been the breach of privacy protected by the law, this concept cannot be absolutized due to the degree of its generality, it requires interpretation, taking into account the specific circumstances of the situation. Events and circumstances that form the personal and family life can be classified as private sphere of life. The special nature of this area of man’s life justify the grant of its strong legal protection. However, this does not mean that any reference to a particular person was information in the field of his or her personal life. The regime of protection of privacy and personal data protection regime are therefore independent. Undoubtedly, when it comes to the relationships and the impact of these regimes, because in certain situations, the actual processing of personal data may result in a violation of personal interests in the form of the right to privacy, or protection of the right to privacy will required the objection to the use of personal data. It is difficult to unequivocally determine whether the disclosure of the first name and the surname of an individual by a local government violates his or her right to privacy. This problem can be resolved only while assessing particular circumstances of each case. In this case, the city was requested to disclose the names of individuals with whom it has entered into a contract of mandate and contract of work. One of these contracts concerned preparation and delivery of a lecture. It was difficult for the Court to accept that anonymization and hiding of the surname of a person giving such a lecture would have any meaning. Other agreements related to use of the electronic system of sociological analysis and organization of the conference. They were entered by specific individuals with a public body, which was the city. These people had to reckon with the fact that their personal data will not remain anonymous. For a person requesting access to public information related contracts entered by a local authority, names of parties to such agreements are often more important than the content, and it is understandable for obvious reasons. It would be difficult in this case to defend the view that the disclosure of names of people in the present context would be deemed as a limitation on the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights of these persons. It had therefore to be assumed, that the disclosure of the names of persons entering civil contracts with a local authority does not affect the right to privacy of those persons referred to in Article 5(2) of the API.

Access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 10/13

August 8th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish company requested the Ministry of Interior to disclose public information in the form of source code of software that is used by the Ministry in performing public tasks related to Voivodeships’ databases of citizens residence. The source code of a computer application was written by employees of the Ministry as part of their employment contracts. The Ministry did not answer the request and the Company filed a complaint on failure to act.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 April 2013 case file II SAB/Wa 10/13 dismissed it. The Court ruled that 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 API and is subject to being made available on the basis of principles and under the provisions defined in this Act. The definition of “public information” is widely criticized for defining ignotum per ignotum. However, Article 6(1) of the API helps to clarify this problem.

Article 6. 1. The following information is subject to being made available, in particular on:
1) internal and foreign policy, including:
a) intentions of legislative and executive authorities,
b) drafts on normative acts,
c) programmes on realisation of public tasks, method of their realisation, performance and consequences of the realisation of these tasks,
2) entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, including:
a) legal status or legal form,
b) organisation,
c) subject of activity and competencies,
d) bodies and persons performing functions therein and competencies,
e) property structure of entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, points 3-5,
f) property they dispose of,
3) principles of functioning of entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, including:
a) mode of conduct of public authorities and their organisational units,
b) mode of conduct of state legal persons and legal persons of local authorities in the area of performing public tasks and their activity within the frames of budget and non-budget economy,
c) methods of passing private-public acts,
d) methods of accepting and settling matters,
e) state of accepted cases, order of their settling or resolving,
f) conducted registers, books and archives and on methods and principles of making data there contained available,
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,
b) opinion on public issues made by the bodies of public authority and by the public officers in the understanding of the provisions of the Penal Code,
c) contents of other presentations and assessments made by the bodies of public authority,
d) information on the condition of the state, local authorities and their organisational units,
5) public property, including:
a) property of the State Treasury and state legal persons,
b) other property rights to which the state and its debts are entitled to,
c) property of the units of local authority and professional and economic local authorities as well as property of legal persons of local authorities and the ill persons’ offices,
d) property of the entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, point 5, coming from disposing of the property, defined in c. a) – c) as well as the profits from this property and its encumbrances,
e) incomes and losses of the commercial companies in which the entities, defined in c. a) – c) hold the dominant position in the understanding of the provisions of the Commercial Companies Code and disposal of this income and the method of covering losses,
f) public debt,
g) public assistance,
h) public burden.
2. The official document in the understanding of this Act is the text of declaration of will or knowledge, preserved and signed in any form by the public officer in the understanding of the provisions of the Penal Code within the frames of its competencies, directed to another entity or filed to the acts.

The Court ruled that with regard to the types of information listed in the above mentioned provision it should be emphasized, referring to definition of public information as any information about public affairs, that public information is such information that carries a message about public affairs. Bearing that in mind, the Court noted that the source code is a series of instructions and statements written in an understandable human programming language that describes the operations that should be performed by a computer, which is a result of the work of developers. The Court ruled that that the source code does not contain any message on public matters, and is only a tool used in computer programs. The fact that certain computer programs are used by public authorities to carry out public functions, does not prejudge that their source code is public information. According to established case law of administrative courts and legal commentators, disclosure of public information is made in the form of material and technical activities, and only the refusal to disclose public information and discontinuance of the proceedings is made according to the provisions of Article 16 (1) of the API, in the form of an administrative decision. However, in cases where the requested information is not deemed as public information, it is sufficient to inform the requesting party of this fact. And in any case such situation cannot be deemed as inactivity of the requested body. According to the Court, the requested information did not met the scope defined in the API.

E-access to public information, case I OSK 175/13

May 25th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 24 October 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 245/12 ruled that official topographic maps that were created and are kept in the databases by the Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography (GUGiK) are public information and must be made available on the request of the creator of dobraulica.pl website. GUGiK filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 April 2013 case file I OSK 175/13 anulled the contested judgment and ruled that the VAC incorrectly applied provisions of law, because in this case, the law on Geodetic and Cartography should be used as a legal basis for deciding the issue of public information and re-use.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 513/12

March 20th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

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.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/KR 152/12

November 28th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

In another case of Tomasz Zieliński, the author of transportoid.com service and software available for Android and Windows Phone that provides timetables of public municipal transport systems, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków in its judgment of 26 November 2012 case file II SAB/KR 152/12 ruled that source code that was used to create a website with public communication timetables is not deemed as public information.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/Kr 105/12

October 19th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Tomasz Zieliński, the author of transportoid.com service and software available for Android and Windows Phone that provides timetables of public municipal transport systems, requested Miejskiego Przedsiębiorstwo Komunikacyjne (Municipal Transport Company) in Kraków to disclose public information in the form of electronic database of timetables. MTP refused and argued that the request goes beyond the the Act on Access to Public Information, apart from, the requested information is available on the website. Mr Zieliński filed a complaint on failure to act.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków in its judgment of 18 September 2012 case file II SAB/Kr 105/12 agreed with Mr Zieliński and ordered MTP to take appropriate actions that were indicated in the request.

E-access to public information, case I OSK 1203/12

October 19th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Association of Leaders of Local Civic Groups (SLLGO) requested the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to disclose documents and the correspondence, including e-mails, that concerned recent legislative works on the amendments to the Polish Act on Access to Public Information. The Prime Minister disclosed part of the requested materials, but without indicated e-mails. The representative of the Prime Minister argued that e-mails are used to send text messages, they are used as internal correspondence in the office, as well as with external entities. E-mails consists of various documents of varying importance, significance and category (from the private and business). However, it is not a system of receiving and processing of official documents and the exchange of official correspondence, including these on the legislative process. The system serves for communications between certain individuals, rather than for the presentation of the official positions of the administration. The SLLGO filed a complaint and argued that the Prime Minister failed to act in order to disclose the requested information.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 1 December 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 295/11 agreed with the SLLGO. The Court ruled that requested e-mails are not private, and they are used to exchange opinions, positions and evaluations between persons exercising public functions. There was no doubt that such electronic means were used for the evaluation and position with respect to the specific provisions of the Act amending the Act on Access to Public Information and other laws. The Court did not agree with the Prime Minister that such exchange of information was intended for internal use and it has working and preparatory nature. The Prime Minister filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 September 2012 case file I OSK 1203/12 annulled the contested judgment. The Court agreed with the PM and decided that e-mails are internal documents. This issue has been resolved in the same way by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 June 2012 case file I OSK 666/12. See “E-access to public information, case I OSK 666/12“.

Access to public information, case I OSK 903/12

September 11th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Daniel Macyszyn, acting as the President of the ePaństwo Foundation, asked the First President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland to disclose information why and on what legal basis, the Supreme Court in its decision No. BSA III – 055-90/11 posted references to the LEX software that is published by Wolters Kluwer, in situation when information available under these references is available for free and in public repositories that are published by the Supreme Administrative Court, and there are also other commercial legal information systems available on the Polish market. The Foundation wanted to know, whether the Supreme Court has the license for the use of LEX software. If the answer was positive, the Foundation inquired when, and in what procedure, and for what price and how many licences were purchased, and what were the criteria for selecting this software. Mr Macyszyn also aksed why the Supreme Court uses this software and not the public and free resources such as repositories of decisions of administrative courts, provided by the Supreme Administrative Court and the gazettes published by the Government Legislative Centre. The last question was whether the Supreme Court cooperates with the Wolters Kluwer on matters other than purchasing a license by the Supreme Court to the LEX. The First President refused to initiate proceedings with regard to disclosure of the requested information and noted that civil law contracts between public authorities with third parties operating in the sphere of private law, do not belong to the category of public information, consequently, they cannot be disclosed to anybody. Such contracts do not in fact belong to the category of “public information” within the meaning of Article 6(1) pt. 4 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 6. 1. The following information is subject to being made available, in particular on:
1) internal and foreign policy, including:
a) intentions of legislative and executive authorities,
b) drafts on normative acts,
c) programmes on realisation of public tasks, method of their realisation, performance and consequences of the realisation of these tasks,
2) entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, including:
a) legal status or legal form,
b) organisation,
c) subject of activity and competencies,
d) bodies and persons performing functions therein and competencies,
e) property structure of entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, points 3-5,
f) property they dispose of,
3) principles of functioning of entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, including:
a) mode of conduct of public authorities and their organisational units,
b) mode of conduct of state legal persons and legal persons of local authorities in the area of performing public tasks and their activity within the frames of budget and non-budget economy,
c) methods of passing private-public acts,
d) methods of accepting and settling matters,
e) state of accepted cases, order of their settling or resolving,
f) conducted registers, books and archives and on methods and principles of making data there contained available,
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,
b) opinion on public issues made by the bodies of public authority and by the public officers in the understanding of the provisions of the Penal Code,
c) contents of other presentations and assessments made by the bodies of public authority,
d) information on the condition of the state, local authorities and their organisational units,
5) public property, including:
a) property of the State Treasury and state legal persons,
b) other property rights to which the state and its debts are entitled to,
c) property of the units of local authority and professional and economic local authorities as well as property of legal persons of local authorities and the ill persons’ offices,
d) property of the entities, defined in Article 4, it. 1, point 5, coming from disposing of the property, defined in c. a) – c) as well as the profits from this property and its encumbrances,
e) incomes and losses of the commercial companies in which the entities, defined in c. a) – c) hold the dominant position in the understanding of the provisions of the Commercial Companies Code and disposal of this income and the method of covering losses,
f) public debt,
g) public assistance,
h) public burden.
2. The official document in the understanding of this Act is the text of declaration of will or knowledge, preserved and signed in any form by the public officer in the understanding of the provisions of the Penal Code within the frames of its competencies, directed to another entity or filed to the acts.

The Foundation requested for the re-hearing and the First President again refused. Daniel Macyszyn filed a complaint against these two refusal orders.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 10 January 2012 case file II SA/Wa 2257/11 repealed both orders of the First President and ruled them unenforceable. The First President filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 September 2012 case file I OSK 903/12 dismissed it and held that any agreement between the public authorities and other entities, is deemed as public information. The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that in matters of access to public information, the public authority cannot refuse to initiate proceedings. It have to either disclose public information, or if there are situations provided in Article 5 of the API, refuse to disclose such information, but in the form of a decision. But even while considering by the authority, whether the requested information is public information, or in case that would lead to the answer that the information is not public information, or that the authority simply does not have it, the proceedings were already initiated, therefore it cannot refuse to initiate it.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 September 2012 case file I OSK 916/12 dismissed another cassation complaint filed by the First President against the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 January 2012 case file II SA/Wa 2259/11 that repealed orders of the First President of the Supreme Court in which it refused to initiate proceedings to disclose information on the content of the contracts, which the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland, the authorities or persons acting under the authority of the government, concluded with the company Wolters Kluwer, with regard to series of books published by Wolters Kluwer such as “Studies and analysis of the Supreme Court” and “Bulletin of the Supreme Court – Labour and Social Security and Public Affairs Chamber”, and the disclosure
of the contents of the contracts, which the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland, the authorities or any person acting from on behalf of the authorities, have concluded with the publishing house LexisNexis Publishing sp. z o.o,, with regard to a series of publications such as “The case law of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber (OSNC)”, “The case law of the Supreme Court – Labour, Social Security and Public Affairs Chamber (OSNP)”, and disclosure of the contents of the contracts, which the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland, the authorities or persons acting under the authority of the government, concluded with the Editorial Board of the “Palestra” with regard to a series of publications entitled “The case law of the Supreme Court – Criminal Chamber and the Military Chamber (OSNKW)”. The Foundation requested also the disclosure of information on what procedure governed the purchase of the above mentioned periodicals by the Supreme Court, in what amounts and for what price.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 30/12

August 3rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish citizen requested a Mayor of the Community to disclose copy of the existing office instructions which are in force in the community. Mayor replied that information covered by the request is available on the Community website. The applicant filed a complaint on the failure to act.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 13 July 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 30/12 ruled that the public authority has not provided the requested information, because the Mayor had only indicated its source – the online Public Information Bulletin (BIP). According to the Court, the Mayor should also give a direct link, under which the requested information is located. The mere URL to the BIP of the Community, cannot be considered as complying with the request.

Access to public information, case I OSK 896/12

July 29th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Edwin Góral, the Polish legal advisor (a profession similar to English solicitor), requested the Office of the Attorney General of the State Treasury to print at his own expense and sent him all the lawsuits and complaints filed by the Attorney General of the State Treasury Office in 2011, until 30 June. The President of the Office refused to disclose the requested information and decided that the Office of the Attorney General of the State Treasury is not an entity obligated to disclose public information, in particular, the documents produced by legal advisors who work for the Office and perform representation activities. Edwin Góral filed a comaplaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 December 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 357/11 dismissed it. The Court ruled that even if the contents of suits, summons, statements of claims, writs are considered as public information, the provisions of Article 1(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, provides that their disclosure should be specified in separate laws. The disclosure of civil suits (petitions) is possible under 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.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 July 2012 case file I OSK 896/12 dismissed the cassation complaint. The Court noted that the announcement of judgment occurs in open court. Judgments, including decisions of the Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection, should be disclosed to the public by a court as provided in the CPC. Similarly, the right of access to the case file, to receive copies of or extracts is governed by the provisions of the Civil Proceedings Code. It should be noted that this is a completely different position to that adopted in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 August 2011 case file I OSK 933/11. See “Access to public information, case I OSK 933/11“.

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.

E-access to public information, case I OSK 2172/11

April 20th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 February 2012 case file I OSK 2172/11 dismissed the complaint against the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 25 August 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 87/11 in which the court ruled that e-mail correspondence of employees of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA) is not deemed as public information.

E-access to public information, case I OSK 666/12

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 such e-mails are not public information, because this 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 amendments to the API. The Court noted that such e-mails relate to public affairs, as it was previously mentioned by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 January 2004 case file II SAB 364/0. The Prime Minister filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 June 2012 case file I OSK 666/12 annulled the contested judgment. The Court held that the requested e-mails are not public information.

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 933/11

September 5th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 11 August 2011 case file I OSK 933/11 held that the provisions of Article 418a of the CRC does not specify different rules and procedures for disclosure and access to public information, which is a court judgment in a criminal case. Judgments, decisions of the courts and their justifications – decided both in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings – are therefore deemed s public information and should be disclosed under the provisions of Article 1(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. See also “Access to public information, case I OSK 896/12“.

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 deemed as 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 created 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 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, 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 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.

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 asked 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. 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 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.

Grzegorz W. informed the Municipality and City Czerwionka – Leszczyny that he expects to receive the documents in the form of photocopies. All documents were sent along with the 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 the provisions of 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 the court. On 7 October 2009, the Referee in the Regional Court Katowice Wschód 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 the 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 its judgment of 27 April 2010 case file I C 19/10 rejected all claims filed by the Municipality and City Czerwionka – Leszczyny. The Court held that Article 7(2) of the API introduced 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.

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/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 I OSK 190/06

September 4th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 6 June 2004, the editor in chief of one of the Polish magazines requested the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration for access and disclosure of the list of entrepreneurs who have been authorized to carry out business activity in the detectives and investigation services. The spokesman of the Minister replied that the registry of companies to whom such permits and licenses have been granted, as a whole, constitutes a database within the meaning of Article 2(1) point 1 of the Polish of 27 July 2001 on Protection of Databases – APD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie baz danych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 128, item 1402 with subsequent amendments. The whole structure of the registry is subject to legal protection and the its individual availability must be understood as the possibility to receive information about a specific item of the database. There are no procedural obstacles that the interested parties may receive information or data about a particular entrepreneur to whom the permit has been issued. So, as a general rule, the access to information contained in the registry is open, it does not mean, however, that the entire database should be disclosed – as a legal structure. The magazine filed a complaint on failure to act. The case went through all instances.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 March 2006 case file I OSK 190/06 dismissed it the cassation complaint filed by the editorial team of the magazine.

Access to public information, case II GSK 459/07

August 7th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 20 March 2008 case file II GSK 459/07 held at the begining of judgment’s justification that administrative decisions are public information within the meaning of article 1(1) of the API and may be disclosed, in accordance with 6(1) pt 4 letter a, first tiret of the API. According to the SAC, after completion of the application proceedings, including any inter partes proceedings, article 251 of the IPL will no longer be applicable, and access to case files will be based on the general provisions of the API. Pursuant to article2(2) of the API, the Authority cannot require to prove legitemate or factual interest from the person entitled to a right to public information.

The Court also held that not all documents from the case file should be considered public information. Such nature have only official documents. Pursuant to article 6(2) of the API, an official document within the meaning of the Act is the content of the declaration of will or knowledge, recorded and signed, in any form by a public official under the provisions of the Penal Code, within its competence, that is addressed to another entity or put to the file.

Access to public information, case V Ca 454/07

July 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Sergiusz Pawłowicz who was also the leading programmer of Janosik project, went the same administrative proceedings as the ISOC Poland. See “Access to public information, case OSK 600/04“. At the final stage the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed Sergiusz’s complaint on the decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court case file II SAB/Wr 72/02, recognizing that the proper course shall be a civil action.

Sergiusz filed a complaint requesting the civil court to order ZUS to disclose specification of KSI MAIL protocol being public information. The Regional Court in Warszawa in its judgment of 8 December 2006 case file XVI C942/04 ruled that publication of the protocol that is used by Płatnik software will not affect in any way the integrity of safety of data sent by this software. Therefore all arguments raised by ZUS with regard to data security were unfounded. The Court also held that ZUS did not prove that the protocol of KSI MAIL is protected by copyrights that belongs to Prokom Software S.A. or whether Prokom received any patent covering this protocol. As for the argument that ZUS’s obligations regarding confidentiality of information about technologies used in Płatnik and its source code, which resulted from the agreement between ZUS and Prokom, the court held that according to the obligation to disclose public information as provided in the Article 13 of 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, the provision of the agreement as a ius dispositivum, may not impose negative consequences on Sergiusz. The court also held that the use of the requested public information and legal interest that Sergiusz and its legal representative derrived from the social interest was beyond the scope of the whole dispute. Simply, there is no need to prove legal interest when requesting the access to public information.

ZUS filed an appeal complaint. The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 23 April 2007 case file V Ca 454/07 dismissed it. The Court held that the court of first instance provided deep and proper analysis of binding legal norms and its judgment was correctly applied.