WSA Rzeszów - II SA/Rz 1539/21
|WSA Rzeszów - II SA/Rz 1539/21|
|Court:||WSA Rzeszów (Poland)|
|Relevant Law:||Article 6(1)(e) GDPR|
|National Case Number/Name:||II SA/Rz 1539/21|
|European Case Law Identifier:|
|Original Source:||Centralna Baza Orzeczeń Sądów Administracyjnych (in Polish)|
|Initial Contributor:||Agnieszka Rapcewicz|
The Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów held that under Polish access to information legislation, public functionaries cannot rely on data protection rights to prevent the disclosure of information related to their salaries.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
The Director of a public school was requested to provide a comprehensive set of information related to the members of its public education board. The information requested included, inter alia, the name, age, completed academic education, position held, and remuneration.
The Director provided the information requested, but refused to disclose the members' remuneration, claiming that the provision of this information would violate the employee's privacy and data protection rights. Upon request to review the decision, the Director upheld it. The Director explained that information related to the expenditures of a public body on the remuneration of its employees is indeed public information, but that this did not imply that the employees would consent to the publication of their names and individual remuneration. Referring to a decision of the Polish Supreme Court in case I OSK 695/14, the Director pointed out that what is considered public information is the amount of public funds allocated to a given position as a base salary, not the exact remuneration a particular person receives (which may include many other elements, such as social benefits, deductions, etc.)
The claimant appealed this decision with the Head of the Municipality, which in turn upheld the contested decision, pointing out that individual remuneration attached to a specific name is personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR. Additionally, the Head of the Municipality maintained that according to Article 11 of the Polish Labour Code, an employer is obliged to respect the rights and dignity of employees, including their right to privacy, and therefore to keep salary information secret.
In view of the above, the claimaint filed a complaint before the The Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Rzeszowie - WSA Rzeszów).
Holding[edit | edit source]
The WSA Rzeszów overturned the decision from the Head of the Municipality. The court held that the remuneration of public functionaries was within the scope of the Polish Law on Access to Information (Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej). According to the court, the fact that a teacher performs a public function precludes them from invoking data protection rights regarding the salary they receive, because this information is inevitably connected with the entrusted public function they perform. Moreover, the court held that the basis for disclosing personal data as part of access to public information is Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, because in this case the processing is necessary to perform a task carried out in the public interest.
However, in accordance with the Supreme Court decision previously cited by the school Director, the court also noted that information regarding remuneration elements which are not related to the exercise of this public function, must not be disclosed pursuant to the aforementioned legal basis and access to information legislation. Therefore, the court held that the claimant had a right to information regarding the individualised base salaries of the members of the public education board.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the Polish original. Please refer to the Polish original for more details.
Date of the judgment 2022-01-27 the decision is not final Date of receipt 2021-10-14 court Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów Judges Ewa Partyka Karina Gniewek-Berezowska / rapporteur / Paweł Zaborniak / chairman / Symbol with description 6480 Thematic slogans Access to public information The appealed authority Mayor of the commune Result content The decisions of first and second instance have been repealed Cited regulations Journal of Laws 2019 item 2325 art. 135, art. 145 § 1 point 1 lit. and The Act of August 30, 2002, Law on proceedings before administrative courts - i.e. Journal of Laws 2020 item 2176 art. 1 clause 1, art. 4 sec. 1 point 1 point 4, art. 5 sec. 2, art. 16 Act of September 6, 2001 on access to public information - i.e. Sentence Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów composed of the following composition: Chairman of the SWSA Paweł Zaborniak Judges of the Provincial Administrative Court Ewa Partyka AWSA Karina Gniewek - Berezowska / court / court reporter, specialist Anna Mazurek-Ferenc, after hearing at the hearing on January 27, 2022, the case from the complaint of the SS against the decision of the head of the commune administrator Communes of [...] September 2021 no [...] on the refusal to provide public information I. repeals the appealed decision and the decision of the Principal of the Primary School in [...] of [...] August 2021 . No. [...] and the decision of the Principal of the Primary School in [...] of [...] July 2021, No. [...]; II. orders the commune administrator to pay the complainant S. S. the amount of PLN 200 / say: two hundred zlotys / for reimbursement of the costs of court proceedings. Justification The subject of the control by the Court is the decision of the Head of the Commune [...] (hereinafter: "the Head of the Commune") of [...] September 2021, No. [...] upholding the decision of the Head of the Primary School in [...] [...] August 2021, No. [...] in the scope of refusing to disclose public information in the scope of "providing information on the remuneration of all members of the pedagogical council at the Primary School [...] in [...], ie 31 people containing personal data of these teachers, i.e. first name, middle name, surname and age, with the specification of all remuneration components broken down by individual council members in individual months for the period from September 2020 to May 2021. " Art. 16 sec. 1 and 2 of the Act of 6 September 2021 on access to public information (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 2176; hereinafter: "u.d.i.p."). The decision was issued in the following facts of the case: By the request of 4 May 2021, the complainant asked the School Director to send the minutes of all meetings of the teachers' council in the school year 2020/2021. In response to the request, the authority, by letter of 2 June 2021, provided the requested information. Another request of 4 June 2021, the complainant asked the Headmaster of the School to provide the following information: first name, middle name, surname, age, education as well as the name and seat of the university, the position held at the school, salary from September 2020 to May 2021 with the specification of all components, all members of the teaching council at the school and for the provision of information about the school's public property as at the date of submitting the application, i.e. property remaining on the school's management board, funds obtained from the budget of the governing body, income obtained from the property managed by the school , about donations and funds obtained from board fees, if the school has such. In the reply given on June 18, 2021, the complainant was presented with a list of the members of the teaching council with first name, middle name, surname, education, university graduation, the percentage of the internship allowance, a summary table of remuneration components for the period from September 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021. with specification of the degree of professional promotion, basic salary, bonuses to the basic salary and remuneration for work on a non-working day, internship allowance, incentive allowance, functional allowances. It was also indicated that due to the fact that the age of the members of the pedagogical council does not affect the expenditure of public finances, and the amount of remuneration depends on the internship allowance, the percentage service allowance was given in the statement. At the same time, information was made available on the property remaining on the school's management board, the main account balance as at June 4, 2021, as well as information on income derived from the property managed by the school, including donations and funds obtained from food fees. By a request of 14 July 2021, the complainant again asked for the following information: first name, middle name, surname, age, salary from September 2020 to May 2021, detailing all remuneration components - all members of the teaching council at the school, division into individual members of the council in particular months, under pain of referral to an administrative court. By decision of [...] July 2021 The School Director refused to disclose public information in the field of providing information on the remuneration of all members of the pedagogical council at the Primary School [...] in [...], containing personal data of these teachers, i.e. first name, middle name, surname and age, remuneration for the period from September 2020 to May 2021, detailing all remuneration components, in breakdown by individual members of the board in individual months. In the justification of the decision, the authority indicated that the information had been provided to the extent available. Providing information to a greater extent, which is currently requested by the complainant, would violate protected employee rights and information related to them, as well as rights covered by the protection of personal data, as information about all components of remuneration collected by specific 31 members of the Primary School pedagogical council would be provided, identified by name and age. In the decision, the authority informed the complainant about the right to request a reconsideration of the case. Within the prescribed period, the applicant exercised the right which he was informed about. As a result of its examination, by the decision of [...] August 2021, the body - the School Director - again refused to disclose public information. In the justification, he explained that the information on the expenditure of a public entity on employee remuneration is public information, but it does not mean consent to publish a list of employees' names with their remuneration. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 18 February 2015, file ref. Act I OSK 695/14 indicated that public information is not what remuneration is received by a specific person, but the amount spent on maintaining a given job from public funds. Therefore, while disclosing public information about teachers' salaries is a consequence of social control of spending public funds, if it is possible to reconcile the public interest with the protection of privacy of individuals, this should be taken into account. In order to control such expenditure, it is not necessary to know how much which teacher earns. It is enough to provide information on how many teachers in the organization receive remuneration in certain amounts, and the complainant received such pledges on June 18, 2021. The applicant appealed against the above decision to the commune administrator [...]. In the letter forwarding the appeal of September 2, 2021, the School Director maintained his current position. By the decision of [...] September 2021, appealed to the Court, No. [...] the Head of the Commune [...] upheld the appealed decision of [...] August 2021 in force. In the justification of the decision, he indicated that pursuant to Art. 4 sec. 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (Journal of Laws of the EU 2016, No. 119, item 1; hereinafter: "the GDPR Regulation"), property information is personal data that is related to the private and family life of a given person. Based on Article. 11 of the Labor Code, the employer is obliged to respect the dignity and other rights of the employee. The employee's good is the right to privacy, including the right to confidentiality of information about the amount of remuneration. Disclosure of information about remuneration constitutes a breach of the employee's personal rights guaranteed under Art. 47 and 51 sec. 1 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that, in response to the request, the complainant was provided with a list of all remuneration components in the requested period, with the list of members of the pedagogical council according to the teachers' professional advancement degree, additionally a tabular list of all members of the school pedagogical council was provided, including the name and surname, name of the completed school or university, level of education, position held and percentage. Within the prescribed period, the applicant lodged a complaint with the local Court. In his complaint, he alleged a violation: - Art. 77 § 1 in connection with joke. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, - Art. 1 clause 1 u.d.i.p. by refusing to disclose public information despite the existing obligation, - Art. 61 sec. 1 and 2 of the Constitution by not disclosing public information in the scope of the activities of a public authority body, - provisions of substantive law, i.e. art. 3 sec. 1 u.d.i.p. and art. 61 sec. 1-3 of the Polish Constitution and Art. 16 sec. 1 u.d.i.p. in connection with joke. 104 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure In extensive justification, the complainant emphasized that the members of the council perform a public function. The above is supported by the powers of the pedagogical council, for example. Despite the fact that the teacher does not issue any decisions, it undoubtedly has a significant impact on the sphere of public rights in the education system. Further on, he considered whether the information on the remuneration of a person holding a public office was related to the performance of a public office. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 18 February 2015, file ref. Act I OSK 695/14 indicated that while there is no such relationship with regard to some components of remuneration resulting from the family and social status of an employee, such a relationship exists with regard to the basic salary of a person holding a public office, incentive allowance or the manner of determining this remuneration. In response to the complaint, the authority appealed for its dismissal. The authority does not question the fact that the teacher, in the performance of his / her official duties, is treated as a person performing a public function within the meaning of Art. 5 sec. 2 ALA, as well as the fact that the remuneration he receives is paid from public funds, the spending of which should be transparent and open. He indicated that on June 18, 2021, he provided the requested information in the field of: teachers' salaries, by providing a pledge broken down by career advancement grades and broken down into functional components, overtime and temporary replacement hours, awards and other benefits resulting from the employment relationship. In the opinion of the authority, the information provided is a compromise between the protection of teachers' interests and personal rights and compliance with the provisions on transparency and the obligation to disclose data of persons performing public functions and spending public funds. The authorities agreed that the remuneration of a person performing a public function also affects the privacy of a natural person and disclosing to the knowledge of other persons specific components of remuneration not related to the public function, and resulting from the personal predispositions of such a person, is subject to protection and should not be subject to the disclosure procedure. The Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów considered the following: Pursuant to art. 1 § 1 and 2 of the Act of 25 July 2002 - Law on the System of Administrative Courts (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 137, as amended), administrative courts administer justice by controlling the activities of public administration in terms of compliance with the law, unless the laws provide otherwise. Based on Article. 145 § 1 point 1 of the Act of August 30, 2002, Law on proceedings before administrative courts (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 2325, as amended; hereinafter: "ppsa"), the complaint is allowed in the case of: a) breach of substantive law that had an impact on the outcome of the case, b) breach of the law giving rise to the resumption of administrative proceedings, c) other breach of the provisions of the proceedings, if it could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the case. Moreover, as results from Art. 134 § 1 of the AA, the Court adjudicates within the limits of a given case, without being bound by the charges and conclusions of the complaint and the legal basis provided. The subject of control by the Court is the decision of the Head of the Commune [...] upholding the decision of the Head of the Primary School in [...] the refusal to provide public information on the remuneration of all members of the pedagogical council, i.e. 31 people, for the period from September 2020 by May 2021, detailing all remuneration components, broken down by individual council members, in individual months, as well as the personal data of these teachers, i.e. first name, middle name, surname and age. According to the authorities, in response to the request of 4 June 2021, the complainant obtained information in the form of a list of all remuneration components in the aforementioned period, listing the members of the pedagogical council according to their degree of professional promotion, and a tabular list of all members of the school's teaching council, containing, as requested, information about names, surnames, names of the school or university, level of education, position held, and the percentage of service. In the opinion of the authority, the remaining requested information regarding the age and all remuneration components collected by specific 31 members of the teaching council, identified by first name, surname and age, would violate the protected employee rights and information related to them, protected by personal data. It was indicated that the requested information was provided to the necessary extent without violating the interests and personal rights of teachers, complying with the provisions on transparency and the obligation to disclose data of persons performing public functions and spending public funds. The complainant does not agree with this position. In his opinion, the teacher performs a public function, and thus the information about his remuneration is public. Therefore, it demands disclosure of the salary of specific teachers employed in the school by name and surname, broken down by subject of teaching, length of service, number of hours and age. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland in Art. 61 (1) guaranteed the citizen a subjective right to obtain information about the activities of public authorities and persons discharging public functions. This right also covers obtaining information about the activities of economic and professional self-government bodies, as well as other persons and organizational units to the extent that they perform tasks of public authority and manage communal property or the property of the State Treasury. The right to obtain information includes access to documents and access to meetings of collective public authorities resulting from general elections, with the possibility of recording sound or image, as provided for in Article 61 (2) of the Basic Law. The limitation of the right in question may take place only due to the protection of the freedoms and rights of other persons and business entities and the protection of public order, security or important economic interest of the state, which results from Art. 61 sec. 3 of the Polish Constitution. In this context, it should also be pointed out to Art. 54 sec. 1 of the Constitution, ensuring freedom for everyone to obtain information. The procedure for providing the information referred to in para. 1 and 2 of Art. 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, was defined mainly in the Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information, which regulates the principles and procedure of access to information having the value of public information, indicates in which cases access to public information is restricted, and when the information requested by the applicant cannot be shared. In the case under examination, apart from the dispute between the parties, the fact that the School Principal is an entity obliged to provide public information within the meaning of Art. 4 u.d.i.p. There is no doubt that the Principal of Primary School, as a body of an organizational unit of the Commune, implementing its own tasks in the field of public education (Article 7 (1) (8) of the Act of March 8, 1990 on the local government - Journal of Laws of 2021 item 1372), on the terms specified in the Education Law of 14 December 2016 (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1082), is an entity obliged to disclose public information pursuant to Art. 4 sec. 1 point 4 u.d.i.p. According to this provision, entities performing public tasks, in particular entities representing state legal persons or legal persons of local government, and entities representing other state organizational units or local government organizational units, are obliged to disclose public information. In addition, the director performs public tasks related to the implementation of the right of every citizen to education and the right of children and adolescents to upbringing and care, appropriate to the age and achieved development, and is also entitled to act in an imperative form in relation to students, e.g. by issuing decisions administrative in the matter of removing a student from the list of students, and thus is a public authority within the meaning of Art. 4 sec. 1 point 1 u.d.i.p. (judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of April 25, 2012, I OSK 248/12, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Kraków of February 16, 2016, II SA / Kr 1573/15, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Olsztyn of November 7, 2017, II SAB / Ol 64/17, all the decisions referred to in the case are available in the Central Database of the Rulings of Administrative Courts, rulings.nsa.gov.pl). The requested information falls under the concept of public information, which also did not raise any doubts. Pursuant to Art. 8 sec. 3 of the Act of December 14, 2016, Education Law (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2020, 910), local government units may establish and run schools and public institutions. Undoubtedly, the school is a public entity as it performs public tasks in the field of education, and also has public property. Information on public property and the way it is spent, even for teachers' salaries, is public information. For the recognition of such data as public information, it is irrelevant whether they relate to a specific employee or group of positions, and whether they include persons performing public functions, and whether the requested information is related to the performance of this function. This, however, is important for the scope of protection under Art. 5 sec. 2 u.d.i.p. (see the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of September 30, 2015, file reference number I OSK 59/14). This was basically what the dispute was about. The authorities, refusing to disclose the requested information, took the position that it touched upon the privacy sphere of employee rights and therefore should not be disclosed, which, bearing in mind, issued decisions refusing to disclose public information pursuant to Art. 16 u.i.d.p. Pursuant to Art. 5 u.d.i.p. 1. The right to public information shall be limited to the extent and on the terms specified in the provisions on the protection of classified information and on the protection of other secrets protected by law. 1a. (expired). 2. The right to public information is limited due to the privacy of a natural person or business secret. This restriction does not apply to information on persons performing public functions related to the performance of these functions, including the terms of entrusting and performing functions, and in the event that a natural person or an entrepreneur resigns from their right. In the context of the above provision, it is therefore necessary to consider whether teachers are persons discharging a public office. The science of law supports a broad understanding of the concept of "a person holding a public office", emphasizing that the catalog of Art. 115 § 13 of the Criminal Code is only basic and non-exhaustive. Moreover, it is noted that a person performing a public function should be considered anyone who performs a function in public authorities or in the structures of legal persons and organizational units without legal personality, provided that this function is related to the administration of state or local government property or the management of matters related to with the performance of their tasks by public authorities, as well as other entities that exercise this power or manage municipal property or the property of the State Treasury. It does not matter on what legal basis the person performs a public function. You should also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 15, 2015, issued in case no. act I OSK 3217/14, in which it was indicated that the concept of "a person holding a public office" is based on the Act autonomous and broader than in Art. 115 § 13 and § 19 of the Criminal Code. Used in art. 5 sec. 2 u.d.i.p. the concept of "a person discharging a public function" covers any person who has an influence on shaping public affairs within the meaning of Art. 1 clause 1 u.d.i.p., i.e. to the public sphere. Such an interpretation corresponds to the intentions of the authors of u.d.i.p. and fully implements the constitutional directive resulting from Art. 61 sec. 1 of the Polish Constitution. The jurisprudence of administrative courts is clearly in favor of a broad interpretation of the concept of a person discharging a public office. It generally assumes that the public function is a function related to the rights and obligations in the scope of performing tasks of public importance (see the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of March 28, 2018, I OSK 1526/16, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of July 8, 2015, I OSK 1530/14). Such a task of public importance is the implementation of the constitutional right to education. Joke. 70 paragraph. 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland shows that public authorities provide citizens with universal and equal access to education, and in accordance with Art. 1 point 1 of the Education Law of December 14, 2016 (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 910, hereinafter: Po), the education system ensures the implementation of the right of every citizen of the Republic of Poland to education and the right of children and youth to upbringing and care appropriate to the age and development achieved. The performance of the above-mentioned public tasks takes place primarily through the work of teachers who use - pursuant to Art. 63 sec. 1 of the Act of 26 January 1982, the Teacher's Charter (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 2215, hereinafter: u.KN) - during or in connection with the performance of official duties, with protection provided for public officials on the terms specified in the Penal Code. Hence, the courts consistently indicate that a teacher is a person holding a public office, and this applies to teachers at all levels of education, regardless of the fact that only some of them are required to submit financial declarations (see the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of April 19, 2011, no. I OSK 125/11, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of April 10, 2015, I OSK 1108/14, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of October 12, 2017, I OSK 537/17, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Kraków of February 16, 2016, II SA / Kr 1573/15, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Gliwice of June 7, 2016, IV SAB / Gl 62/16, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of November 23, 2017, VII SAB / Wa 105/17, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Szczecin of November 30 2016, II SAB / Łd 49/13, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Łódź of 5 July 2017, II SAB / Łd 49/13, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław of 4 May 2017, IV SA / Wr 20/17 ). The assumption that a teacher is a person performing a public function is also supported by the fact that pursuant to Art. art. 69 sec. 1 of the Act of 14 December 2016 Educational Law (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1082; hereinafter: "After"), in a school or institution employing at least 3 teachers, there is a pedagogical council, which is a collegiate body of the school or institution in the implementation of its statutory tasks related to education, upbringing and care. On the other hand, pursuant to Art. 69 sec. 3 P.o. the pedagogical council consists of: the headmaster of the school or institution and all teachers employed in the school or institution as well as employees of other workplaces acting as practical vocational training instructors or conducting educational work with young employees in collective accommodation institutions for which teaching and educational work is the primary occupation . Pursuant to Art. 70 paragraph. 1 P.o. the powers constituting the teaching council include: 1) approving the work plans of the school or facility after the opinion of the school or facility council; 2) adopting resolutions on the results of the classification and promotion of students; 3) adopting resolutions on pedagogical experiments in a school or institution, after their projects have been approved by the council of the school or institution and the parents' council; 4) establishing the organization of in-service training for teachers of a school or institution; 5) adopting resolutions on removal from the list of students; 6) determining the method of using the results of pedagogical supervision, including that exercised over the school or facility by the body exercising pedagogical supervision, in order to improve the work of the school or facility. Moreover, pursuant to Art. 70 paragraph. 2 P.o. the pedagogical council gives opinions in particular on: 1) the organization of the work of the school or institution, including the weekly timetable of educational activities, and the organization of qualifying vocational courses, if the school or institution conducts such courses; 2) a project of the financial plan of the school or facility; 3) the headmaster's applications to award teachers decorations, prizes and other distinctions; 4) proposals of the head of the school or institution regarding the allocation of permanent jobs and classes to teachers as part of the basic salary and additionally paid didactic, educational and care activities. In view of the above-mentioned competences of the pedagogical council, the teacher of which is a member by law, despite the fact that he does not issue any decisions, undoubtedly has a significant impact on the sphere of public affairs in the education system. Therefore, it does not only perform service activities that are not directly related to the substantive competences of the school, but only serve the implementation of these competences. This allows the teacher to be considered a person performing a public function within the meaning of Art. 5 sec. 2 d. 2 u.d.i.p. The consequence of the above position is less protection of privacy than in relation to other entities. This also applies to remuneration. Also in this respect, the rich jurisprudence of administrative courts allows for the formulation of the thesis that the disclosure of basic teacher remuneration. In the judgment of June 22, 2021, file ref. no. IV SAB / Wr 150/21, the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław indicated that the right to privacy does not protect an academic teacher as a person performing a public function in terms of information related to the performance of this function, and the amount of remuneration collected by him certainly remains in connection with his function. In another judgment, the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław indicated that the information on the remuneration of a person holding a public office, regardless of the fact that it also affects the privacy of a person, is related to the performance of that public function - judgment of May 29, 2020, file ref. act IV SAB / Wr. At the same time, that court noted that there was no such link, however, with regard to certain components of the remuneration resulting from the family or social status of the employee. On the other hand, such a relationship takes place with regard to the basic salary of a person holding a public office or the incentive supplement. Previously, such a position was taken by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of February 18, 2015, file ref. act I OSK 695/14, in which it indicated that when considering the possibility of disclosing information on the remuneration of a person performing public functions, the authority should always analyze whether it is necessary from the point of view of the objectives of the right to public information, and whether it violates the dignity and intimacy of the person whose such information concerns. Providing information about the amount of public funds spent on the remuneration of a specific employee of the public entity will not always mean disclosure of the actual remuneration paid, which may have many elements, as well as deductions from it may be made for various reasons. The Supreme Administrative Court emphasized that as long as the disclosure of the basic salary of an officer will not be limited by the right to privacy, various types of benefits, e.g. social assistance, may be covered by such protection (e.g. benefits related to the illness of a family member). Deductions for alimony are also protected. When translating the above considerations into the content of the application under consideration, it should be stated that the fact that the teacher performs public functions excludes the possibility of relying on data protection in the scope of the remuneration obtained, the receipt of which is necessarily related to the performance of the entrusted function. A separate issue is, however, bonuses to remuneration, which are not always related to the performance of a public function. In a situation where the application covered all components of the remuneration of individual members of the pedagogical council, disclosure should be made of the amount of the basic salary and those components of remuneration that are directly related to the performance of a public function. In the remaining scope, the authority, referring to the provision provided for in Art. 5 sec. 2 u.d.i.p. protection has the right to refuse to provide public information. However, the refusal to provide all the components of the remuneration received by individual teachers with reference to Art. 5 sec. 2 u.d.i.p. The authority cannot hide behind the information provided to the complainant because it did not coincide with the request. On the basis of the information provided, it is impossible to determine the basic salary of individual teachers, and that was exactly what the application referred to. It is also impossible to defend the position that providing collective information on remuneration and individual allowances exhausts the notion of public information in this respect as information about the expenditure of a public entity. The question arises, what if the application concerns an individual named teacher. In such a situation, disclosure of that teacher's data would have to be made in an analogous manner, which would therefore not justify aggregating information on the remuneration paid to all teachers when the applicant explicitly requests this information in relation to each teacher. However, the refusal to provide information on names, surnames, education of the headquarters of the university and the position held, which has already been provided, should be considered justified. The court also agrees with the position that the age of the teachers requested by the applicant does not constitute public information, as it does not affect the amount of remuneration, which may depend on the internship allowance, but not on the age. Summarizing the above considerations, it should be stated that the information on the amount of teachers' remuneration is, in principle, public information within the meaning of Art. 1 clause 1 of the Act on Public Procurement Law, because information about public matters is also information about the expenditure of public funds by the body. Therefore, information about the remuneration of a person performing a public function, regardless of the fact that it also affects the privacy of the person, to the extent that it is related to the performance of this public function, is subject to disclosure. The court does not share the opinion that the basis for refusing to provide the requested information are the provisions of the GDPR Regulation, as these provisions do not exclude the application of the provisions of the The regulation regulates, inter alia, the principles of collecting and processing personal data of natural persons, and not making them available as part of access to public information. These issues are regulated by the provisions of the Act on Public Procurement Law. In addition, the basis for disclosing personal data as part of access to public information is Art. 6 sec. 1 lit. e GDPR (processing is necessary to perform a task carried out in the public interest or as part of the exercise of official authority entrusted to the controller) in connection with specific provisions of national law, i.e. As a consequence, the disclosure of information on the expenditure of public funds on teachers' salaries, pursuant to Art. 5 sec. 2 u.d.i.p. and art. 61 sec. 3 and art. 31 sec. 3 of the Polish Constitution, does not violate the provisions of the GDPR Regulation. Considering the above, the Court revoked the contested decision, as well as the decision of the Director of the Primary School [...] in [...] of [...] August 2021 and the decision of the Director of the Primary School [...] in [...] of [...] July 2021, acting pursuant to Art. 145 § 1 point 1 lit. a and art. 135 p.p.s.a. The court notes that, in issuing the decision of [...] July 2021, the School Principal incorrectly informed the applicant about the right to submit a request for reconsideration, which was no longer the case when the decision of [...] August 2021 was issued r., in which properly instructed about the right to appeal. While the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure do not apply in the proceedings on access to public information, they will be applicable in the event of a decision refusing access - Art. 16 sec. 2 u.d.i.p. This means that the decision of the body of first instance may be appealed against to a higher-level body, which was the commune head in relation to the school headmaster. The Court ruled on the costs pursuant to Art. 200, 205 § 1 and 209 of the LLP