EN
The author analyzes the bill in terms of the division of tasks that have been imposed on the county head (starosta), into their own and delegated tasks. The main criterion of the division is the purpose of the activity. An analysis of the bill would argue for recognition of the tasks imposed on starosta as delegated tasks. The bill provides for the possibility of loss of a property by the owner. This is a permissible limitation of the right of property, which according to the Constitutional Tribunal has not an absolute character and is subject to limitation only by statute, without limiting the essence of ownership. The above result consisting in the loss of property by the owner is in conformity with the Constitution. However, doubts are raised as to the approach of the bill to the status of animals. The author suggests that the bill should contain a provision comparable to Article 9a of the Act on the Protection of Animals applicable to all animals.