Due to the principle of sustainable development and placement of the Hunting Law in the system of protection of natural environment, admission of archery as a method of hunting on the territory of the Republic of Poland may raise – according to the author – doubts. Extending the arsenal of hunting weapons by a bow could find a justification only in the situation, when, based on independent scientific research, it would confirm the thesis that the bow can be effective for purposes of the hunting economy and can constitute a weapon at least as humanitarian and safe as a hunting firearm.
The author provides an opinion on the original bill (before the adoption of amendments). The bill is aimed at implementing the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal concerning the admissibility of declaration of invalidity of an administrative decision issued with a gross infringement of law, when a significant period of time has passed since the decision was issued and the decision was the basis for acquiring a right or an expectancy. The thirty-year period for the declaration of invalidity of such a decision may lead to the limitation of the principle of durability of an administrative decision. According to the author, the refusal to initiate administrative proceedings would exclude the possibility of the so-called prejudication.
According to the author, a complaint to the administrative court in the discussed cases is not admissible. This thesis is justified by provisions of applicable law and jurisprudence of administrative courts. The provisions of the Act – Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts indicate that a complaint against inactivity or excessive length of proceedings is admissible only in cases where a public administration body was obliged to issue decisions, rulings or other acts.
In the case-law and in the literature on the subject, there is disagreement as to whether it is permissible to regulate in the statute of the auxiliary unit the principles and procedure for dismissal of a member of the resolution body of that auxiliary unit. Such a possibility also does not arise directly from the Act on Communal Self-government, as it does not regulate the issue of dismissal of members of legislative bodies coming from direct elections. If it is assumed that a community council had been given the opportunity to make decisions on specific matters related to the local community, then it is justified in the context of the interests of that community to discipline community councillors, e.g., depending on their attendance at the council sessions.
As regards the regulation of correspondence between public entities and professional attorneys or entrepreneurs, the Bill introduces, as a rule, a consistent and comprehensive system of electronic delivery. Doubts are raised by the definition of a public entity in the context of provisions on administrative proceedings. The sponsor of the Bill did not indicate directly whether the database of electronic addresses would be a public register. The obligation imposed on professional attorneys and entrepreneurs to possess an address for electronic delivery will facilitate the determination of this address for the needs of public entities. In the author’s opinion, there is no justification for a significant differentiation of vacatio legis.
According to the author, the exclusion of the possibility of a head of commune to request action by the sanitary inspection, postulated in the bill, may raise doubts from the point of view of sanitary safety on the territory of a commune. The bill assumes a transfer to the Act of a normative content of regulations of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration and the Military Sanitary Inspection regarding the State Sanitary Inspection. In the author’s opinion, including provisions containing such normative content does not seem appropriate. He presents comments regarding the drafting of provisions granting inspection bodies the power to issue administrative decisions.
In response to the ECPRD request, the Bureau of Research provided the requester with information on restitution of cultural heritage goods. According to the author, the return of cultural goods acquired from a foreign country during a war or colonization is regulated in the Polish Act on Restitution of National Cultural Goods, which governs the implementation of the Directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. The Republic of Poland was requested by Germany to return certain cultural goods, confiscated after World War II. However these requests were turned down because the goods were acquired as a result of the change of state borders. Before the above-mentioned Act came into force, the Polish state had returned some cultural goods to other countries. The Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage has a special unit which deals with restitution of artworks and keeps the Catalogue of the War Losses - The Division for Looted Art.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.