administration | In Principle

The EU’s Single CMO Regulation provides for heavy penalties for use of a form contract with even minor deviations from the formal requirements under that regulation. As a result, the National Support Centre for Agriculture may impose administrative fines of millions of zlotys on businesses.

This obligation arises from Art. 79a of the Administrative Procedure Code, which has been in force for several years but does not seem to be applied very often. Instructions to the parties are obligatory regardless of the type of case—from welfare benefits to building permits.

On 20 April 2021, the President of Poland signed into law an act amending a number of laws on public participation in proceedings concerning projects likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

The amendment to the act on environmental impact assessments signed into law by the President of Poland increases the powers of environmental organisations and makes obtaining permits for development projects more time-consuming. It will be possible to stay the execution of a decision on environmental conditions, suspending proceedings on project permits. But the law also provides for certain measures that may limit the negative impact of such rulings on investors.

Restrictions resulting from the state of epidemic, as well as extensive changes in law coming into force overnight, require a fresh look at many issues, including such mundane issues as when administrative decisions become final.

The restrictions due to the state of epidemic are making life harder for all of us. But in pending administrative proceedings, there is no basis for holding back actions and resolution of matters, particularly as this could lead to a backlog. The lack of penalties for inaction or delay should not be an excuse for administrative authorities.

The coronavirus epidemic is generating new problems for parties to business transactions: restrictions on business operations, supply disruptions, limited availability of staff and materials, changes in the operation of public bodies and post offices. The downtime they cause has effects not only on civil-law grounds. In addition, there is the issue of expiry of administrative permits. Do the existing regulations, and the new Anti-Crisis Shield, offer any solution?

The solutions provided for in the Anti-Crisis Shield are intended to activate extraordinary instruments supporting businesses during the pandemic. Can changes in the running of time limits provided for by law, including proceedings before public administrative bodies and administrative courts, be regarded as such a solution?

Before the first contractors appear on the construction site, the investor must comply with many formalities, including obtaining a building permit. But what if the documentation filed with the construction authorities proves incomplete or does not comply with the regulations? Does this necessarily bar completion of the project?

An amendment to the Construction Law of 27 March 2003 that came into effect as of 11 July 2003 was intended to simplify building permit proceedings, and thus speed up investment projects. One of the ways in which this was to be done was reducing the number of entities that were parties to the proceedings. A party is entitled to take an active part in the proceedings, and can therefore file motions or appeals. This clearly prolongs the proceedings.

The Supreme Administrative Court recently reviewed a case concerning unauthorised change of use of real estate. According to the construction permit it was supposed to be a residential part of a building, but was converted into rooms to be let.

The issue of unlawful acts and omissions generates some of the greatest controversy in the case law surrounding claims for damages against public authorities. It requires proof from which the court can conclude that a specific act or failure by public bodies was contrary to law.