Lubartów, March 2020
Winning a court is not always a win.
Photo from the materials of Channel S TV
We have received a judgment (not yet final) regarding our complaint regarding the refusal to provide a legal opinion to the "diet" resolution for which we applied in August 2019. What was that about?
The local government elections in Lubartów completely changed the balance of power in the city. The new government announced openness, transparency and, in general, what each new government more or less promises. For example, during the meeting with the Mayor of Lubartów with us and visiting us Christian Davies from The Guardian.
10 months after taking the mandate, we asked the question again - from which end does the public fish deteriorate? In our opinion - from the head, but the head is not at the central level, but in local governments. This is where the shell soaks.
In any case, the first joint resolution initiative of the councilors was to introduce a draft resolution on increasing the allowances. The discussion on this initiative was long, stormy and the case is "pending" as we are in the course of court proceedings regarding a request for an appeal referendum. If you are interested, please visit our website. On the other hand, the court dispute concerned providing us with a legal opinion on the draft resolution on increasing the allowances for councilors. Opinions on draft resolutions as to their compliance with the law are provided for in the City Statute. It was also requested by a group of councilors signed under the bill.
During the session, there were many proposals for amendments to this resolution. That is why it seemed natural to us to ask the Mayor of Lubartów to provide a legal opinion, especially since the draft resolution was introduced to the hand-held session, so the residents could not trace exactly what its original content was and why changes had to be made. After all, the discussion on increasing the allowances for councilors is also a discussion on the quality of law making - in this case - local law.
The mayor of the city, refusing to disclose this document to us, argued that the legal opinion was prepared for him, for his use, he did not show it to anyone and had no influence on the changes in the resolution.
Therefore, we could not act otherwise than to apply to the Provincial Administrative Court in Lublin. Because everyone who watched the report from the Session of the City Council, could hear with their own ears what the councilor proposing amendments to this resolution is referring to. So it was the remarks made by the lawyer of the office.
A successful decision was made for us. Only, are you sure?
To sum up:
The opinion concerned the settlement of a specific matter of the commune.
It concerned persons holding public office.
It was closely related to ensuring the proper functioning of the commune authority.
It concerned the management of the commune's assets.
And we don't like going to court.
Did we really have to prove our interests to the authorities before the Court? Basic right to information? It is not the Foundation that beats the Mayor, it is the local government community that is losing to the authorities where we have to prove that these are our common interests.
At the Provincial Administrative Court, local television accompanied us with a camera.
We like what the Provincial Administrative Court in Lublin said:
The right to information under Art. 61 of the Constitution is a public right of a citizen, implemented in accordance with the principles specified in the Act on access to public information.
This means the application of such rules of interpretation to this act that are conducive to extending the information obligation.
[…]
Although the Council adopts resolutions in the legislative process on its own, in a state of law, where it is assumed that the authorities will be controlled by civil society, a citizen, under the constitutional right of access to public information, has the right to find out what premises was followed when adopting a specific resolution, and thus to read with conclusions of opinions and expert opinions regarding a specific draft legal act.
We have a right to know.
