rok XI nr 3 (60)/2015 - Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

rok XI nr 3 (60)/2015
Warszawa 2015
WYDAWCA
Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
KOMITET REDAKCYJNY
Barbara Adamiak, Stefan Babiarz, Stanisław Biernat, Irena Chojnacka, Jan Filip,
Andrzej Gomułowicz (zastępca redaktora naczelnego), Bogusław Gruszczyński, Roman
Hauser, Andrzej Kisielewicz, Małgorzata Sawicka-Jezierczuk (sekretarz redakcji), Andrzej
Skoczylas, Janusz Trzciński (redaktor naczelny), Maria Wiśniewska, Andrzej Wróbel
Korekta: Justyna Woldańska
ADRES REDAKCJI
Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
00-011 Warszawa, ul. G.P. Boduena 3/5
tel. 22 826-74-88, fax 22 826-74-54, e-mail: [email protected]
© Copyright by Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
Warszawa 2015
ISSN 1734-803X
Nr indeksu 204358
„Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego” znajdują się w wykazie czasopism
punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego
na potrzeby oceny parametrycznej jednostek naukowych.
Liczba punktów za publikację wynosi 6.
W celu upowszechniania za granicą opracowań ukazujących się w „Zeszytach Naukowych
Sądownictwa Administracyjnego” (ZNSA) Wydawca uzgodnił z redakcją „The Central European
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities” (CEJSH) internetową publikację ich streszczeń
w języku angielskim.
Wersją podstawową (referencyjną) czasopisma jest wersja papierowa.
Wolters Kluwer SA
01-208 Warszawa, ul. Przyokopowa 33
www.wolterskluwer.pl
Dyrektor Działu Czasopism:
Klaudiusz Kaleta, tel. +48 604 290 764, [email protected]
Sekretariat: tel. 22 535 82 03
Szczegółowe informacje o prenumeracie czasopism można uzyskać
pod numerem infolinii 801 044 545, faks 22 535 80 87, [email protected]
Skład i łamanie: Andytex, Warszawa
Druk ukończono w czerwcu 2015 roku. Nakład 1000 egz.
SPIS TREŚCI
Spis treści
MATERIAŁY Z OBRAD DOROCZNEGO ZGROMADZENIA OGÓLNEGO
SĘDZIÓW NACZELNEGO SĄDU ADMINISTRACYJNEGO
W DNIU 22 KWIETNIA 2015 R. W WARSZAWIE
Wystąpienie Prezesa NSA profesora Romana Hausera ................................................................
List Prezydenta RP Bronisława Komorowskiego .........................................................................
List Marszałka Senatu RP Bogdana Borusewicza ........................................................................
List Prezesa Rady Ministrów Ewy Kopacz ...................................................................................
List Prezesa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego Andrzeja Rzeplińskiego ..............................................
Sprawozdanie z przebiegu obrad (opracował Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut) .......................
Report of the proceedings ...........................................................................................................
9
24
26
27
28
33
38
STUDIA I ARTYKUŁY
Dr Jan Chmielewski (adiunkt, Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego w Warszawie)
Wykładnia autentyczna w praktyce orzeczniczej sądów administracyjnych ......................
Summary ....................................................................................................................................
45
62
Dr Tomasz Filipowicz (radca prawny)
Dr Adam Krzywoń (adiunkt, Uniwersytet Warszawski)
Prof. dr hab. Marek Wierzbowski (Uniwersytet Warszawski)
Konkretyzacja celu użyteczności publicznej w świetle postanowień art. 7 ust. 2 dekretu
o gruntach warszawskich .....................................................................................................
Summary ....................................................................................................................................
64
74
VARIA
Dr hab. Maciej Trzciński (profesor, Uniwersytet Wrocławski)
Uwagi o ochronie zabytków na marginesie wyroku Sądu Rejonowego w Jeleniej Górze
z dnia 1 grudnia 2014 r. (sygn. akt II K 348/14) ..................................................................
75
ORZECZNICTWO
I.
Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej (wybór i opracowanie: Andrzej Wróbel,
Piotr Wróbel)
Dyrektywa 2008/7/WE – Artykuł 2 ust. 1 lit. b/ i c/ – Podatki pośrednie
od gromadzenia kapitału – Opodatkowanie podatkiem kapitałowym – Wkłady
kapitałowe do spółki komandytowo-akcyjnej – Możliwość zakwalifi kowania
takiej spółki jako spółki kapitałowej
Wyrok TSUE z dnia 22 kwietnia 2015 r. w sprawie C-357/13 Drukarnia Multipress
sp. z o.o. przeciwko Ministrowi Finansów ..........................................................................
85
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka (wybór i opracowanie: Agnieszka Wilk-Ilewicz)
Nadzwyczajne środki odwoławcze a art. 6 Konwencji gwarantujący prawo
do rzetelnego procesu
Wyrok ETPC z dnia 5 lutego 2015 r. w sprawie Bochan przeciwko Ukrainie (skarga
nr 22251/08) ...................................................................................................................
92
Trybunał Konstytucyjny (wybór: Irena Chojnacka, opracowanie: Mieszko Nowicki)
Wyrok TK z dnia 12 lutego 2015 r. (sygn. akt SK 14/12) [dot. nałożenia podatku
akcyzowego w razie ujawnienia przez organ nieprawdziwych danych w oświadczeniu
nabywcy o przeznaczeniu kupowanego oleju na cele opałowe] .......................................
95
Sąd Najwyższy (wybór i opracowanie: Dawid Miąsik)
Wyrok SN z dnia 15 października 2014 r. (sygn. akt III SK 47/13) [dot. interpretacji
art. 56 ust. 6a prawa energetycznego – kary pieniężnej] .................................................
100
Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny i wojewódzkie sądy administracyjne
A. Orzecznictwo Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego (wybór: Stefan Babiarz,
opracowanie: Marcin Wiącek)
Uchwała składu siedmiu sędziów NSA z dnia 27 października 2014 r.
(sygn. akt II GPS 2/14) [dot. ustalenia i nałożenia korekty fi nansowej na podstawie
ustawy o zasadach prowadzenia polityki rozwoju] ......................................................
B. Orzecznictwo wojewódzkich sądów administracyjnych (wybór: Bogusław
Gruszczyński, opracowanie: Marcin Wiącek)
1. Wyrok WSA w Poznaniu z dnia 26 marca 2014 r. (sygn. akt II SA/Po 1317/13)
[dot. zwrotu nieruchomości wywłaszczonej na podstawie art. 47 ust. 1 ustawy
z dnia 12 marca 1958 r. o zasadach i trybie wywłaszczania nieruchomości] ...........
2. Postanowienie WSA w Gdańsku z dnia 27 marca 2014 r. (sygn. akt
III SA/Gd 63/14) [dot. braku prawa do skargi na opinię wydziałowej komisji
doktoranckiej w sprawie przyznania stypendium doktoranckiego] .........................
3. Wyrok WSA w Białymstoku z dnia 17 kwietnia 2014 r. (sygn. akt
II SA/Bk 35/14) [dot. sprzeciwu wobec zgłoszenia zamiaru wykonania
robót budowlanych] .................................................................................................
4. Wyrok WSA w Opolu z dnia 6 listopada 2014 r. (sygn. akt II SA/Op 474/14)
[dot. nałożenia opłaty planistycznej] .......................................................................
107
114
121
123
127
Glosy
Dr Adam Krzywoń (adiunkt, Uniwersytet Warszawski)
Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 23 stycznia 2014 r.
(sygn. akt II FSK 2518/13) [dot. afi rmatywnego wyroku interpretacyjnego TK
jako podstawy wznowienia postępowania (art. 190 ust. 4 Konstytucji)] .....................
135
Mgr Radosław Bulejak (doktorant, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, asystent sędziego w WSA
we Wrocławiu)
Glosa do postanowienia Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 6 maja 2014 r.
(sygn. akt II FSK 760/14) [dot. niedopuszczalności skargi do sądu administracyjnego
od zaświadczenia wydanego przez naczelnika urzędu skarbowego] ...........................
145
SĄDOWNICTWO ADMINISTRACYJNE W EUROPIE
Dr David Kryska (adiunkt, Uniwersytet Karola w Pradze)
Aktualne orzecznictwo czeskich sądów administracyjnych w sprawie prawa
głosowania obywateli UE w wyborach lokalnych ..............................................................
153
KRONIKA
Kalendarium sądownictwa administracyjnego (marzec–kwiecień 2015 r.)
(opracował Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut) .......................................................................
165
BIBLIOGRAFIA
Publikacje z zakresu postępowania administracyjnego i sądowoadministracyjnego
(marzec–kwiecień 2015 r.) (opracowała Marta Jaszczukowa) .................................................
179
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
MATERIALS FROM THE SESSION OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
HELD ON 22 APRIL 2015 IN WARSAW
Speech by the President of the Supreme Administrative Court Professor Roman Hauser ............
Letter from the President of the Republic of Poland Bronisław Komorowski ...............................
Letter from the Marshal of the Senate of the Republic of Poland Bogdan Borusewicz .................
Letter from the Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz ................................................................................
Letter from the President of the Constitutional Tribunal Professor Andrzej Rzepliński ..............
Report of the proceedings (prepared by Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut) ...............................
Report of the proceedings ...........................................................................................................
9
24
26
27
28
33
38
STUDIES AND ARTICLES
Jan Chmielewski, PhD (assistant professor, Kozminski University in Warsaw)
Authentic interpretation in the decision-making practice of administrative courts ...........
Summary ....................................................................................................................................
45
62
Tomasz Filipowicz, PhD (legal advisor)
Adam Krzywoń, PhD (assistant professor, University of Warsaw)
Professor Marek Wierzbowski, PhD (University of Warsaw)
Specification of the public utility purpose in the light of the provisions of art. 7(2)
of the Decree on land in Warsaw ..........................................................................................
Summary ....................................................................................................................................
64
74
VARIA
Maciej Trzciński, PhD (professor, University of Wrocław)
Comments on the protection of monuments relating to the judgment of the District
Court in Jelenia Góra of 1 December 2014 (fi les no. II K 348/14) ......................................
75
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
I.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (selected and prepared by Andrzej
Wróbel, Piotr Wróbel)
Directive 2008/7/EC – Article 2(1)(b) and (c) – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital
– Subjection to capital duty – Contributions of capital to a partnership limited by
shares – Classification of such a partnership as a capital company
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 22 April 2015 in the case
C-357/13 Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o.o. v Minister of Finance .........................................
85
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
The European Court of Human Rights (selected and prepared by Agnieszka
Wilk-Ilewicz)
Proceedings in connection with an “appeal in the light of exceptional circumstances”
with reference to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights rendered in
the previous case concerning the lack of proper execution in the case relating to
property claims
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 5 February 2015 in the case
Bochan v Ukraine, application no. 22251/08 ....................................................................
92
The Constitutional Tribunal (selected by Irena Chojnacka, prepared by Mieszko
Nowicki)
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 12 February 2015 (files no. SK 14/12)
[the levy of excise duty in the case where the authority fi nds invalid data in the
purchaser’s declaration on the intended purpose of the fuel oil purchased] ....................
95
The Supreme Court (selected and prepared by Dawid Miąsik)
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 October 2014 (fi les no. III SK 47/13)
[the interpretation of art. 56(6a) of the Energy Act – fi nancial penalty] ..........................
100
The Supreme Administrative Court and voivodeship administrative courts
A. Judicial decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court (selected by Stefan Babiarz,
prepared by Marcin Wiącek)
Resolution of a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of
27 October 2014 (fi les no. II GPS 2/14) [determining and making a fi nancial
correction pursuant to the Act on the principles of development policy] .....................
B. Judicial decisions of voivodeship administrative courts (selected by Bogusław
Gruszczyński, prepared by Marcin Wiącek)
1. Judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań of 26 March 2014
(fi les no. II SA/Po 1317/13) [the restitution of real estate expropriated pursuant
to art. 47(1) of the Act on the principles and procedure for the expropriation of
real estate of 12 March 1958] ...................................................................................
2. Order of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gdańsk of 27 March 2014
(fi les no. III SA/Gd 63/14) [the lack of the right to lodge a complaint against a
doctoral scholarship award decision of the departmental doctoral committee] .......
3. Judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok of 17 April 2014
(fi les no. II SA/Bk 35/14) [the objection to the notification of the intent to carry
out construction works] ...........................................................................................
4. Judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Opole of 6 November 2014
(fi les no. II SA/Op 474/14) [the levy of a planning fee] ............................................
107
114
121
123
127
Glosses
Adam Krzywoń, PhD (assistant professor, University of Warsaw)
Gloss to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23 January 2014
(files no. II FSK 2518/13) [the affirmative interpretative judgment of the Constitutional
Tribunal as a basis for reopening proceedings (art. 190(4) of the Constitution)] .............
135
Radosław Bulejak, MA (PhD student, University of Wrocław, assistant to a judge in the
Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław)
Gloss to the order of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 May 2014
(fi les no. II FSK 760/14) [the inadmissibility of lodging a complaint with an
administrative court against a certificate issued by the head of a tax office] ................
145
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN EUROPE
David Kryska, PhD (assistant professor, Charles University in Prague)
Current case-law of the Czech administrative courts concerning the right of EU citizens
to vote in local elections .......................................................................................................
153
CHRONICLE
Schedule of events in the administrative jurisdiction (March–April 2015)
(prepared by Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut) .....................................................................
165
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Publications in the area of administrative and court-administrative proceedings
(March–April 2015) (prepared by Marta Jaszczukowa) ..........................................................
179
Report of the proceedings
On 22 April 2015, the annual General Assembly of the Judges of the Supreme
Administrative Court was held in the Assembly Hall at the seat of the Supreme
Administrative Court in Warsaw. During the meeting, Information on the activities of administrative courts in 2014, presented by the President of the Supreme
Administrative Court, Professor Roman Hauser, was adopted by way of a resolution.
The solemn meeting was attended by – in addition to the President of the
Supreme Administrative Court, the Vice-Presidents: Jacek Chlebny, PhD, Janusz Drachal, Maria Wiśniewska and professor Marek Zirk-Sadowski, as well
as judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and Presidents of voivodeship
administrative courts – the following invited guests – representatives of constitutional State organs and associations of legal practitioners: on behalf of the
President of the Republic of Poland Bronisław Komorowski – Krzysztof Łaszkiewicz, Secretary of State at the Chancellery of the President of the Republic
of Poland; on behalf of the Marshal of the Sejm – Deputy Marshal of the Sejm
of the Republic of Poland Marek Kuchciński; on behalf of the Marshal of the
Senate – Senator Piotr Zientarski, President of the Legislation Committee of the
Senate; on behalf of the Prime Minister – Cezary Grabarczyk, Minister of Justice; First President of the Supreme Court Professor Małgorzata Gersdorf; on
behalf of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal – Maciej Graniecki, Head
of the Office of the Constitutional Tribunal; two Vice-Chairmen of the National
Council of the Judiciary of Poland – Piotr Raczkowski and Krzysztof Wojtaszek;
on behalf of the Prosecutor General – Deputy Prosecutor General Marzena Kowalska; Professor Irena Lipowicz – Human Rights Defender; Marek Michalak –
Ombudsman for Children; on behalf of the Secretary of the Council of Ministers
– Vice-President of the Government Legislation Centre Piotr Gryska; Senator
Professor Michał Seweryński – Chairman of the Human Rights, the Rule of Law
and Petitions Committee; Stanisława Prządka – Chairperson of the Justice and
Human Rights Committee of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland; Stanisław Piotrowicz – Deputy Chairperson of the Justice and Human Rights Committee of
the Sejm of the Republic of Poland; Hanna Majszczyk – Undersecretary of State
at the Ministry of Finance; Antoni Cyran – Head of the Chancellery of the First
President of the Supreme Court; judge Waldemar Żurek – Spokesperson of the
National Council of the Judiciary of Poland; Grzegorz Borkowski – Head of the
Office of the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland; Roman Kapeliński –
Director of the Legislative Office of the Chancellery of the Senate; Urszula Góral
– Director of Social Education and International Co-operation Department at the
Office of the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection; Dariusz Sarajewski –
President of the National Council of Legal Advisers; Andrzej Zwara – President
of the Polish Bar Council; Jadwiga Glumińska-Pawlic – President of the National
Chamber of Tax Advisers; Anna Korbela – President of the Polish Chamber of
Patent Attorneys.
After an official inauguration, the President of the Supreme Administrative
Court, Professor R o m a n H a u s e r, presented the information about the activities of the Supreme Administrative Court and of voivodeship administrative courts
conducted in 2014. The content of the speech in extenso may be found on p. 9 of this
ZNSA issue.
The first guest to take the floor was the Secretary of State at the Chancellery
of the President of the Republic of Poland – K r z y s z t o f Ł a s z k i e w i c z, who
read a letter from the President of the Republic of Poland B r o n i s ł a w K o m o r o w s k i. The content of the letter in extenso may be found on p. 24 of this ZNSA
issue.
The second speaker was Senator P i o t r Z i e n t a r s k i, President of the Legislation Committee of the Senate, who read a letter from the Marshal of the Senate
B o g d a n B o r u s e w i c z. The content of the letter in extenso may be found on
p. 26 of this ZNSA issue.
Afterwards, Minister of Justice C e z a r y G r a b a r c z y k read a letter from the
Prime Minister E w a K o p a c z addressed to the participants of the meeting. The
content of the letter in extenso may be found on p. 27 of this ZNSA issue.
The next speaker was Professor M a ł g o r z a t a G e r s d o r f, First President
of the Supreme Court. Her speech was devoted to questions related to the mutual
relationship between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court.
First of all, referring to Article 184 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland,
which determines the role of the Supreme Administrative Court and of other administrative courts, she noticed that forms of activity of the broadly understood
State and complicated relations between legal norms make it increasingly difficult to separate spheres of competence of administrative courts and of common
courts and the Supreme Court. According to the President, this phenomenon is
influenced by the fact that public administration bodies more and more often use
private law instruments to fulfi l public law objectives. By way of example, she
indicated the legal institution of subsidy and the broadly understood privatisation
of public services, including those in the field of road transport, education and
collection of public levies. This results in the blurring of the boundary between
public and private law and the replacement of administrative law by private law.
The President pointed out that the administrative court’s cognition is determined
in particular by the lack of equal position of the parties of a legal relationship.
However, it is possible to doubt whether the unilateral impact of a given public
administration body on the legal relationship is lower in the case of fulfi lment of
a public objective under an agreement, and whether the sole form in which a given
legal relationship was established should determine the qualification of the case
and court proceedings. Professor M. Gersdorf noticed that the subsidy law shows
to what point the criteria for distinguishing private and public law and for allocating competences between administrative and common courts, considering a certain constitutional presumption of the latter’s competences resulting from Article
177 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, are transitory and uncertain. By
way of conclusion, she stated that the unequal status of the parties is no longer an
adequate criterion for distinguishing civil and administrative cases, and that the
privatisation of public tasks causes a necessity to discuss relationships between
particular types of courts within the judicial system. Afterwards, the President
paid attention to the scarcity of legal solutions for resolving confl icts of competence between administrative and common courts. She noted that Article 1991
of the Civil Procedure Code, Article 66 § 4 of the Administrative Procedure Code
and Article 58 § 4 of the Law on the System of Common Courts solve only negative
confl icts (and not the positive ones) and force an entity interested in benefiting
from legal protection to test public bodies in order to have the lack of competence
of one of them stated. The President referred to a Resolution of the Supreme Court
(fi les no. III CZP 44/08), in which it is stated that the predictability of individuals’
rights constitutes an element of the concept of state based on the rule of law, not
on arbitrariness. She expressed the view that the present system should provide
for an equivalent of the former Competence Council. Furthermore, she suggested
a possible solution in the form of resolutions of joined panels of the Supreme Administrative Court and of the Supreme Court, adopted at the request of Presidents
of these courts. According to the President, the introduction of such instruments
to the ordinary law would not be pointless nor inconsistent with the Constitution.
The First President of the Supreme Court paid attention also to the debatable question of an increasing number of bilateral legal actions of a dominantly public law
nature. In her opinion, considering the subject of such actions (rant agreements,
agreements on transfer of public schools, concession agreements) and their public
law component, such cases should be solved rather by administrative courts than
by common courts and the Supreme Court. At the end of her speech, the President, highlighting that administrative judiciary constitutes a great achievement
of the independent Republic of Poland, mentioned the Act amending the Law on
Proceedings before Administrative Courts adopted on 9 April 2015. She noticed
that Article 145a of the Act, which allows courts to judge, in special situations, on
the merits (and not only reverse and remand a judgment), is a symbolic starting
point of a new era in the history of the Polish administrative judiciary and that it
will impact the manner of understanding the constitutional term “control over the
performance of public administration”.
Afterwards, the floor was taken by the Head of the Office of the Constitutional
Tribunal M a c i e j G r a n i e c k i, who read the speech of the President of the CT
Professor A n d r z e j R z e p l i ń s k i addressed to the participants of the meeting.
The content of the letter in extenso may be found on p. 28 of this ZNSA issue.
The next speech was delivered by Human Rights Defender Professor I r e n a
L i p o w i c z. At the beginning, she indicated that the Information on the activities
of administrative courts in 2014 provides an opportunity to assess the condition
of public administration in Poland. Referring to the statement of the President of
the Supreme Administrative Court, according to which the percentage (22.2%) of
repealed acts of public authorities remains at the same level as in previous years,
Professor Lipowicz noticed that such an elimination or correction of activities of
public authorities by administrative courts could be expected rather with regard
to less well equipped local administration bodies, and not to ministries or central public administration bodies. She indicated that, in the case of certain departments, the number of repealed acts amounts to several dozen percent. For
example, she mentioned the Ministry of Finance, which is at the same time a promoter of tax law reforms in favour of taxpayers. The Human Rights Defender referred also to the problematic character of tax interpretations. According to her,
there are serious problems related to the modernisation of central administration
bodies. She paid attention to the issue of ministry officials’ responsibility for inappropriate administrative acts. The foregoing is confi rmed by the criticism included both in judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court and in speeches
of the Human Rights Defender. Irena Lipowicz mentioned an increasing need to
conduct central administration reforms on such a scale as the one observed in
the case of local government administration. Afterwards, she noted a growing
number of actions for failure to act lodged against public administration bodies.
She indicated that this issue is present also in complaints submitted to the HRD
and its nature often concerns the entire system and goes beyond an individual
administrative case. Thus, it requires a systemic approach comprising organisational, personnel and financial measures. In response to the HRD’s questions
posed in the name of citizens and concerning the failure to act, some central administration bodies (e.g. the National Broadcasting Council, the National Enfranchisement Commission, Mazowieckie Voivodeship Office) admit that they are not
able to timely examine submitted applications for staffi ng and fi nancial reasons
and, as a result, time limits specified in the Code of Administrative Proceedings
are grossly exceeded. Professor Lipowicz stated that, in the case of many bodies
created after 1989 – in addition to the classic government and local government
administration – we are dealing with a systemic crisis of their operation. She suggested that, due to the aforementioned phenomenon, it may be necessary to redeploy officials from less burdened bodies, in which their competences are not
effectively used, to more burdened ones (e.g. Ministry of Infrastructure), i.e. allocation of forces and funds within public administration. Furthermore, the Human
Rights Defender stated that the perspective from which administrative courts rule
and the legal instruments which the courts have at their disposal make it possible
to detect inappropriate allocation of forces and funds as well as dysfunctions of
public administration. Professor Lipowicz called on administrative courts to actively use the institution of signalling, as such activity is currently decreasing (in
2013, voivodeship administrative courts issued only 5 signalling decisions). As
a consequence – in the opinion of the HRD – the executive does not receive signals
concerning dysfunctions of administration and their concentration. At the end of
her speech, she expressed hope that the meeting would help to reverse that trend,
stating that administrative courts generate information which could constitute an
incentive for legislative authorities in the new term to undertake, at the request
of executive authorities, actions aimed at a fundamental correction of the use of
forces and funds in public administration.
Afterwards, Col. P i o t r R a c z k o w s k i, judge of the Regional Court-Martial in Warsaw, Vice-Chairman of the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland,
addressed an occasional speech to those gathered at the meeting. He stated that
the data concerning the performance of administrative courts in 2014 contained
in the Information presented by the President of the Supreme Administrative
Court is impressive and awe-inspiring. The judge mentioned the amendment of
the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts adopted on 9 April 2015,
pointing out that, according to him, mainly the new right of courts to judge on
the merits will result in an even more positive public perception of administrative courts. The reason for that will be the fact that the society will perceive
administrative courts as bodies which, in certain situations, substitute public
administration bodies.
The last person to take the floor was M a r z e n a K o w a l s k a – Deputy Prosecutor General. First of all, she stated that courts – like the prosecutor’s office
– constitute an element of the system of legal protection bodies. She pointed out
that provisions regulating administrative court proceedings in cases in which it
is necessary to protect the rule of law provide for the presence of a prosecutor,
although some of the rights are in the case of such proceedings reserved to the
Prosecutor General or Prosecution General. Marzena Kowalska informed that
the Prosecutor General conveyed to the President of the Supreme Administrative
Court 2 requests for the adoption of abstract resolutions, considering discrepancies appearing in judgments with regard to the application of the Environmental
Protection Law and with regard to the restitution of expropriated property under
the Real Estate Management Act. She stated that on 26 June 2014 the Supreme
Administrative Court adopted a socially important resolution at the request of
the Prosecutor General of December 2013, stating that “In the case of benefiting
from a child care leave in order to take care of more than one child born during
a single childbirth, a child care supplemental allowance provided during the child
care leave, referred to in Article 10(1) of the Act of 28 November 2003 on family
allowances (Journal of Laws of 2013, item 1456, as amended), shall be granted
per each of the children” (files no. I OPS 15/13). Furthermore, the Deputy Prosecutor General paid attention to the activity of the Court Proceedings Department
at the Prosecution General, the tasks of which include analysing judgments of
administrative courts. In 2014, prosecutors of the Prosecution General, exercising their powers in administrative court proceedings, participated in the sessions of expanded adjudication panels of the Supreme Administrative Court and
presented their stand in 27 cases with regard to the adoption of resolutions by
the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, the HRD and on the basis of
decisions of adjudication panels. Afterwards, the Deputy Prosecutor noted that
legal issues constituting the subject of resolutions of the Supreme Administrative
Court are complex and increasingly related to questions of EU law, which makes
it necessary to refer to the European case law and legal acts. Moreover, she highlighted the positive impact of judgments of administrative courts on the law application process. Furthermore, Marzena Kowalska noticed that prosecutors from
all prosecutor’s offices actively exercise powers granted to them under the Law on
Proceedings before Administrative Courts by lodging complaints to voivodeship
administrative courts, by fi ling appeals against their non-fi nal judgments and by
participating in court proceedings. She underlined that the participation of a prosecutor in each stage of court proceedings aims at the protection of the rule of
law as well as of human and civil rights. In 2014, prosecutors lodged 546 complaints to voivodeship administrative courts and 28 cassation appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court. What is more, they participated in the examination
of 879 cases by voivodeship administrative courts and of 58 cases by the Supreme
Administrative Court. Marzena Kowalska positively assessed the amendment of
the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts of 9 April 2015, indicating
that solutions adopted therein will contribute to an increase in the already high
efficiency and quality of judgments of administrative courts.
After a break, proceedings were resumed and the General Assembly of the
Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court unanimously carried a resolution on
the adoption of the Information on the activities of administrative courts in 2014,
presented by the President of the Supreme Administrative Court.
Prepared by Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
(Judicial Decisions Bureau
of the Supreme Administrative Court)
Summary
of the article: Authentic interpretation in the decision-making practice of administrative courts
One of the most debatable and controversial methods of interpretation is authentic interpretation, the perception and understanding of which by the administrative judiciary are
extremely varied. On the one hand, there are rulings in which authentic interpretation is
treated as a fully fledged method of interpreting the provisions of the substantive administrative law. On the other hand, some panels deny any relevance to such interpretation and
exclude its application.
The main aim of the article is to analyze the case-law of voivodeship administrative
courts and the Supreme Administrative Court in which authentic interpretation (including
its various types) was taken into account. The conclusions of the analysis are, in the opinion
of the author, intended to harmonize and provide a clearer order to the terminological and
conceptual framework relating to the method of interpreting legal texts discussed in the
article.
The article presents an analysis of the rulings of administrative courts from the years
1999–2014 available in the Central Database of Rulings of Administrative Courts (judgments, resolutions) the grounds for which take into account or refer to authentic interpretation (at legal and regulatory level). It made it possible to identify four autonomous groups of
rulings, in the case of which authentic interpretation was perceived and treated by panels
as: 1) a fully exploited method of interpreting legal texts in the application of law; 2) the explanation of a decision rendered by a civil court (the so-called interpretation of a judgment);
3) a type of interpretation of only subsidiary nature; 4) a method of interpreting a legal text
that is inadmissible and unauthorized under the administrative law.
The article describes particular rulings belonging to the aforementioned groups. It made
it possible to formulate general conclusions and proposals, the most important of which, in
the opinion of the author, amount to, among others: respecting the decision-making practice
whereby the situation where the courts of general jurisdiction (civil courts) explain their
judgments (decisions) is referred to as authentic interpretation; challenging the view that
documents drawn up in the legislative process should be regarded as providing authentic
interpretation; challenging the view that a practice whereby an authority that has introduced particular provisions (including especially local law acts) also explains them is called
authentic interpretation or the view that authentic interpretation is equivalent to legal definitions.
Summary
of the article: Specification of the public utility purpose in the light of the provisions of
art. 7(2) of the Decree on land in Warsaw
The subject of the article is the issue of the correct interpretation of art. 7(2) of the Decree on land in Warsaw. The authors point out that the interpretation of this provision must
take into account the Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 November 2008,
I OPS 5/08. Consequently, the authors argue that a refusal to grant a real right must be based
on one of the grounds provided for in the Decree, or else such refusal would be a gross breach
of law. The main thesis of the article is that it is unacceptable for administration bodies to
rely on the sole fact that the property concerned is intended for public utility purposes. A decision of refusal under the Decree is possible only if grounded on reasons related to a validly
adopted and properly published spatial development plan. The provisions of such a plan may
be concretized, but only through acts containing general rules.
The authors also point out that the interpretation of art. 7(2) of the Decree on land in
Warsaw, even though it was adopted in different political conditions, must take account of
the current constitutional directives, including but not limited to the requirement to protect
the rights and freedoms of individuals.