Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
In the article there was carried out an analysis was of selected nor-mative changes introduced to the Code of Administrative Procedure in years 2010–2012, from the point of view of their quality. These changes had a differentiated character, their practical mean-ing is also different, however a modification of CAP was made in the greatest scope by the so-called „December amendment”, this is by act of 3 December 2010. on alteration of act – the Code of Administrative Pro-cedure and act – Law on procedure before administrative courts. There are also far-reaching changes and causing doubts concerning their qual-ity, in particular if one takes into account the drafters' intentions formu-lated in reasons of a bill draft, and then he compares with them the final effect (unchanged in the course of further legislative work). A doubt is also risen by a way of introduction of so far-reaching changes of the pro-cedure, which is the most often applied legal act by the public admini-stration.In the above scope the, analysis includes in the first place a change which consists in amending contents of the objective truth principle formulated in art. 7 CAP, in a way intending to activate parties of the procedure. A succeeding amended provision (by the same „December amendment”) to which I allowed to turn attention,, is a change of the contents of art. 24 § 1 point 5 CAP causing extension of a catalogue of employees subject to exception by virtue of the law from participation in the administrative proceedings. A change having a creative character is also a new possibility of supplementing and rectifying a decision ex officio, introduced by added art. 111 § 1a CAP. The legislator also de-cided to introduce a new prerequisite of permissibility of cassation deci-sions making a modification of art. 138 § 2 CAP. In addition I have decided to subject to evaluation an issue of a new obligation, which was imposed by act of 15 July 2011. on change of act – Code of Administrative Procedure and act – Tax Regulations (Dz. U. No. 186, item. 1100). It consists in adding among others art. 66a to CPA, which imposes an obligation to keep a certificate of a case by adminis-trative organs. A new art. 76 a CAP was also analysed, which was added by art. 1 point 2 of act of 23 October 2009 on change of act in the scope of certifi-cation of documents (Dz. U. No. 216,item 1676 with later changes) from 1 January 2010 and determines principles of certifying documents es-sential for adjudication of an administrative case. In the above presented examples of new process regulations one can notice that assumptions of the drafter concerning the object of the amendments and benefits which they are to bring, are not in reality identical with the intended ones.
EN
The subject of the ruling was the legal assessment of the cassatory complaint lodged against the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw of November 30, 2018 (reference number V SA/Wa 1780/18). The controlled decision of the court of first instance went beyond the limits of its jurisdiction in the analysed case. The judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court can be considered only from a formal point of view. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed of a complaint claiming that the cassation was inadmissible. However, the way in which he did so and how he assessed the ruling of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw raise huge doubts as to the completeness of procedural regulations.
PL
Przedmiotem glosowanego orzeczenia była ocena prawna zarzutów skargi kasacyjnej wniesionej od wyroku Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego w Warszawie z 30.11.2018 r. (V SA/Wa 1780/18), mocą którego stwierdzono nieważność decyzji kasacyjnej Samorządowego Kolegium Odwoławczego w Warszawie. Kontrolowane rozstrzygnięcie sądu pierwszej instancji wykraczało poza granice jego kognicji w ramach rozpatrywanej sprawy. Orzeczenie, które zapadło przed Naczelnym Sądem Administracyjnym, można uznać za poprawne wyłącznie z formalnego punktu widzenia. Sąd ten skargę kasacyjną odrzucił jako niedopuszczalną. Jednak sposób, w jaki to uczynił oraz to, jak ocenił orzeczenie WSA w Warszawie, budzą ogromne wątpliwości co do kompletności regulacji procesowych.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2013
|
vol. 58
|
issue 4 (351)
123-134
EN
The Act of 3 December 2010 on amendments to the Act – Administrative Proceedings Code and the Act – Law on Administrative Court Proceedings, has modified the scope of categories of employees of an administrative body who are subject, by law, to the exclusion from administrative proceedings related to cases in which they participated. Still, the new shape of the provision was introduced without defining ‘an employee’ that should be ‘excluded’. In his article, the author analyses the judicature of administrative courts and verdicts of the Constitutional Tribunal in this regard, and he observes that the basic legal problem that calls for an interference of the legislator has been the definition of the legal status of a person that performs the functions of a monocratic administrative body.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.