The purpose of this article is to present the most significant legal problems related to judicial control of actions of administration within the scope of development policy. The following issues have been discussed: admissibility of judicial control, object of control exercised by administrative courts and judicial proceedings in these matters. Distribution of funds from the European Union has been regulated by the Act on the Principles of Implementing the Development Policy (APIDP). APIDP also regulates judicial control of actions of administration within the scope of development policy. The proceedings before administrative courts was regulated differently in APIDP than in the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (LPAC), significantly modifying general procedural rules. This causes numerous controversies and interpretative difficulties. In the course of argument I establish that the subject of the control exercised by administrative courts are, so-called, otheracts and activities of the administration. The so-called information on the outcome of the appeal procedure shall be considered as other act and activity of the administration. The views recognizing information as an administrative decision or factual action are erroneous. The article further discusses the problems of complaint to administrative court, i.e. filing the complaint, terms, payment of court fees, the issue of so-called ‘completeness’ of the complaint. Then the activities of the administrative court have been analyzed, i.e. acceptance of complaint, dismissal of complaint, or leaving the complaint without consideration. It was found that the court may also reject the complaint or leave it without recognition, which is controversial due to unclear wording of the APIDP. Provisions of APIDP has been assessed negatively as causing confusion, chaotic, full of legislative errors. Some provisions have to remain dead (eg. terms of considering complaints), others are clearly unconstitutional.