The case began with a simple question. In February, the istotne.pl editorial team submitted a public information request to Zakłady Ceramiczne „Bolesławiec”. We wanted to know how much the company had paid in 2025 for banners, sponsored articles and other forms of advertising in the Bolec newspaper and on the Bolec website.

Zakłady Ceramiczne refused to disclose the amount. The company claimed that it was not subject to the Act on Access to Public Information because it conducts commercial activity and does not perform public tasks.

Provincial Administrative Court: the company was required to consider the request

The case went before the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław. In a judgment dated 15 July 2026, the court found that Zakłady Ceramiczne had failed to act and ordered the company to consider our request within 14 days of receiving the final judgment.

The Provincial Administrative Court did not limit itself to the procedural issue. In its reasoning, it held that Zakłady Ceramiczne is subject to the Act on Access to Public Information. The court pointed out that the State Treasury holds 100 percent of the shares in the company, and that its assets—because of the way the company was established and its ownership structure—are subject to the principles of transparency and public oversight.

The court also directly addressed our question and held that information about the amount spent by the company on advertising in a specific medium in 2025 constitutes public information. In its reasoning, the Provincial Administrative Court referred to a number of earlier judgments by the Supreme Administrative Court concerning companies with State Treasury participation and the transparency of their asset management.

Zakłady take the case to the Supreme Administrative Court

The management board, namely Wojciech Huczyński and Arkadiusz Grzesikowski, filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court through an attorney. They seek to have the Provincial Administrative Court’s judgment overturned insofar as it found that the company had failed to act, ordered it to consider the request and awarded the costs of the proceedings. They also want the Supreme Administrative Court to dismiss our original complaint.

The attorney for Zakłady is attempting, among other things, to challenge the interpretation of the State Treasury’s “dominant position”. The complaint argues that holding 100 percent of a company’s shares does not necessarily mean having a dominant position within the meaning of competition protection regulations. It even includes a request for the Supreme Administrative Court to consider referring the issue to a panel of seven judges.

At the same time, the cassation complaint itself acknowledges that Supreme Administrative Court case law already exists according to which, for the purposes of the Act on Access to Public Information, the dominance of a public owner may be understood as capital control. However, Zakłady’s attorney wants the Supreme Administrative Court to reconsider this interpretation.

In practice, this means another court proceeding instead of providing a single figure.

More than a quarter of a million zlotys on legal services

The case is all the more interesting because Zakłady Ceramiczne spends substantial amounts on legal services. The company’s 2025 report shows that approximately PLN 274,000 was spent on legal services. That is more than a quarter of a million zlotys in a single year.

The case, which began with a question about one specific amount—how much the state-owned company paid a private media company for advertising—is now generating further costs. Filing the cassation complaint itself cost Zakłady only the PLN 100 court fee, but legal service costs must be added to that. We do not know their amount in this particular case.

We still do not know the figure

Several months have now passed since our first request. Zakłady Ceramiczne initially decided that it did not have to respond at all. It then lost before the Provincial Administrative Court. Now it has opted to file a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.

Administrative courts have already ruled many times in similar cases, and in its reasoning the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław cited numerous earlier Supreme Administrative Court judgments concerning the transparency of companies controlled by the State Treasury.

Despite this, there is still no answer to the basic question: how much did Zakłady Ceramiczne „Bolesławiec” pay Bolec in 2025 for advertising in the newspaper and on the website?

Ultimately, the Supreme Administrative Court will decide the case’s further course.