Polish legislator has determined a number of conditions of admissibility of initiating of constitutional review proceeding. In proceeding before the Constitutional Tribunal there are several prerequisites for court proceeding and one substantial prerequisite. Non-fulfilment of any of the positive prerequisites or appearance of even of one of negative prerequisite causes inadmissibility of proceeding. In every case it is necessary to point out a specific prerequisite of proceeding causing its inadmissibility. Superfluity of proceeding constitutes one of negative prerequisite for court proceeding which causes discontinuance. Research of jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal shows several different reasons causing superfluity of adjugment. Mainspring of superfluity is re-challenging of a provision which has already been reviewed by prior decision. If the Constitutional Tribunal find challenged regulation unconstitutional, re-adjugment of this regulation is superfluous because the main goal of constitutional review (i.e. removal of inconsistency of legal system) has already been achieved. In turn, if the Tribunal find challenged regulation constitutional and the petitioner does not indicate new argumentation, re-adjugment of this regulation is pointless due to lack of new ground for review. To sum up, if the proceeding does not serve restitution of constitutionality, it cannot be conducted due to superfluity. That situation takes place when the main goal of constitutional review has already been achieved.