The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław found that Zakłady Ceramiczne „Bolesławiec” had failed to act by not properly considering a request submitted by Krzysztof Gwizdała, the publisher of the istotne.pl portal. The question concerned how much money the company had spent in 2025 on banners, sponsored articles and other forms of advertising in one local portal and the newspaper it publishes.
The court ordered Zakłady Ceramiczne to consider the request within 14 days of receiving the final judgment. The company must also reimburse the publisher of istotne.pl 100 zł in legal costs. The judgment was issued on 15 July 2026. At this stage, this does not yet mean that it is final.
Zakłady claimed they did not have to respond
A request for public information was submitted on 24 February 2026. The publisher of istotne.pl asked for the specific amount allocated by Zakłady Ceramiczne to advertising in a competing local medium.
The company replied that it was not required to provide this information under the Access to Public Information Act. It argued that it conducts commercial activity, does not perform public tasks and is not listed in the Public Information Bulletin.
Krzysztof Gwizdała disagreed with this position and referred the case to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław. The court sided with the publisher of istotne.pl.
The company is wholly owned by the State Treasury
In the reasoning for the judgment, the court indicated that all shares in Zakłady Ceramiczne „Bolesławiec” are held by the State Treasury. The company was established as a result of the transformation of a state-owned enterprise. Its share capital amounts to 6.502 million zł and is divided into 13 004 shares, all of which were taken up by the State Treasury.
According to the court, this means that the state holds a dominant position in the company. Zakłady Ceramiczne is therefore subject to the Access to Public Information Act, even if it conducts business activity and does not perform typical official tasks.
The court also stressed that the company’s assets retain the character of public assets. They should therefore be subject to public oversight and transparency rules.
Advertising expenditure is subject to oversight
The court found that information about how much a state-owned company paid for advertising in a specific medium is public information. Zakłady Ceramiczne should therefore provide an answer or – if there were legal grounds for refusal – issue a formal administrative decision.
The company did neither. It merely sent a letter stating that the Access to Public Information Act did not apply to it. According to the court, this position was incorrect, and the publisher’s request was not properly considered.
Why did the company choose a much smaller portal?
The question about the amount of the expenditure is also important because Zakłady Ceramiczne advertises in a medium with significantly lower viewership than istotne.pl. Published data indicate that the difference in traffic can be several times greater.
Simply purchasing advertising in a smaller portal does not necessarily indicate mismanagement. Such a choice may be justified if the price is correspondingly lower. That is why istotne.pl wants to determine whether the company purchased advertising on favorable terms and whether the expenditure was proportionate to the reach obtained.
Without knowing the amount, it is also impossible to rule out that the choice of medium was influenced not only by economic considerations but also by personal relationships or acquaintances. At this stage, there are no grounds to make such an accusation, but transparency of expenditure is precisely what makes it possible to check whether the decision was based on price, viewership and advertising effectiveness, or on criteria unrelated to economic efficiency.