Poland’s Presidential Office is refusing to disclose the identities of experts who advised on the government’s SAFE financial security instrument.
Analysis Commissioned, Identities Concealed
The Presidential Office confirmed that an analysis was prepared during the legislative process for the Polish Investment Defense Fund Act, but declined to release the document or reveal the authors’ names.
The refusal came in response to a public information request from a DGP reader seeking details on opinions or analyses – legal, economic, etc. – related to the SAFE Financial Instrument for Increasing Security Act.
Internal Document Status Cited
The Presidential Office argued the analysis is an internal document, exempt from public access under established administrative court rulings. They cited a 2026 Supreme Administrative Court decision (III OSK 1581/25).
The court previously ruled that public information access laws grant the right to information on public matters, but not to *all* information held by public bodies. It affirmed that internal documents, serving only the needs of the body, are not subject to disclosure.
Selective Use of Precedent Questioned
Szymon Osowski, president of the Sieci Obywatelska Watchdog Polska, criticized the Presidential Office for selectively applying administrative court precedents to avoid transparency. He noted that a suitable ruling justifying non-disclosure can always be found.
Past Precedent: Komorowski’s OFE Experts
Osowski pointed to a similar situation in 2011, when the Presidential Office also refused to disclose expert opinions prepared for then-President Bronisław Komorowski regarding changes to Open Pension Fund (OFE) contribution rules. That case also reached the Supreme Administrative Court, which ultimately sided against the Presidential Office in 2012 (I OSK 2130/11).
Distinction Between Legislative and Internal Documents
The Supreme Administrative Court had distinguished between expert opinions related to the legislative process – which *must* be disclosed – and those that are purely internal, lacking such a connection. However, Osowski argues that Polish administrative courts’ definition of “internal document” has led to rulings unfavorable to transparency, including a loss at the European Court of Human Rights in a case concerning Julia Przyłębska’s meeting calendar.
International Standards vs. Polish Practice
Osowski explained that international standards allow for withholding documents during the decision-making process (e.g., while a president considers vetoing a bill). However, Polish practice allows classifying a document as “internal” to permanently shield it from public view.
He argues this interpretation may conflict with Article 61 of the Polish Constitution, which guarantees access to public information. He believes all documents commissioned during legislative processes should be publicly available online, as is the case with the Sejm and Senate.
Identity of Advisors Remains Confidential
The Presidential Office’s refusal to disclose the names of the experts advising on the SAFE project is also considered questionable, mirroring the Komorowski-era case. Courts ultimately ruled that such data constitutes public information (WSA Warsaw, October 11, 2017, II SAB/Wa 175/17; NSA, July 2, 2018, I OSK 233/18).
Osowski suggests that anyone challenging the office’s decision in court would likely succeed.