On the Polish System of Judicial Control of Administration

(1)

Lecture

On the Polish System of Judicial Control of Administration

Leszek Leszczynski^＊

1. Short history

　Judicial review of administrative activity has a vital tradition in Poland.^1） The Supreme Administrative Tribunal, established soon after end of the Great War and resurrection of Poland after 123 years of nonexistence (due to the partitions conducted by Russia, Prussia and Austria), operated between 1922 and 1939. Its activity has been stopped by the beginning of the World War II. The administrative courts had not been functioning only in the time of this war (German occupation) and then in the period of the communist regime in Poland after 1944.

　In spite of fact, that the idea of judicial control of administration (as an executive power) had been contrary to the principle of uniformity of state power and an ideological assumption of

＊　The Marie Curie ─ Sktodowska University Professor

1）　See: J. Swiątkiewicz: Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny [Supreme Administrative Court] Warszawa 2001, at 11─48, See also interesting comparative analysis in: H.

Kaneko: Scieżka reform sądowej kontroli administracji w Japonii i Polsce [The Path of Reforms of Judicial Control of Administration in Japan and Poland], paper prepared to be published in Polish journal “Państwo i Prawo”)

(2)

lack of failures in stateʼs activities, its authorities decided to en- act in 1960 the Code of Administrative Procedure,^2） establishing the rules of administrative decision-making processes, nar- rowing the discretion of administrationʼs activities. The high quality of this act made it still binding, though many amendments had been made as well.

　The idea of judicial control of administration, contrary to the communist legal ideology of lack of any conflict between state organs and agencies in a communist state, appeared in Poland in 1980, when The Supreme Administrative Court Act of 31 January 1980 established the Court,^3） operating as one court for all Poland with local branches (five in 1981, enlarged to ten in 2002, when system changed) and experiencing very limited cognition of control of administration. One might say, that due to the political reasons, all really important matters of administrative activities had been excluded from the judicial control.

　The restoration of the Supreme Administrative Court in 1980 as a specialized court meant however that the Polish system of judicial control of administration, followed both pre-war Polish tradition of that kind of court (with the different name) and continental European tradition of establishing the courts, sepa- rated from the general judiciary exercising jurisdiction limited to the control of legality (conformity with the law) of adminis-

2）　Ustawa z dnia 14 czerwca 1960 r. Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego [Law of June 14, 1960 Code of Administrative Procedure], “Dziennik Ustaw”

[Journal of Laws], 1960, No 30 item 168 (thereafter called as “the CAP”)

3）　Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny [Supreme Administrative Court], thereafter:

“the SAC”

(3)

trative activity.^4） Therefore, the system has varied from the An- glo-Saxon model of the substantive judicial control of administration by regular courts (based usually on rules of civil procedure).^5）

　The range of administrative acts, decisions and other activities subjected to judicial control considerably expanded after the restoration of democratic order in 1989. As a one of results of this deep change, the Act of 24 May 1990 on an Amendment to the CAP ^6） and the Supreme Administrative Court Act of 11 May 1995^7） shaped the new scope of the judicial review in much broader and deeper dimension, making it definitely more realistic and effective for the new social and political order.

　The 1997 Constitution of the Republic of Poland^8） in Article 236 item 2 established the duty to introduce in a period of 5 years a system of at least two instances of judicial control on administration. On this basis, three acts passed in 2002 intro-

4）　See: R. Hauser, M. Wierzbowski (ed.), Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami ad- ministracyjnymi. Komentarz [Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, A Commentary, Warsaw 2011, at 38─42

5）　That model is practiced in contemporary Japan, contrary to the pre-war system, based on German tradition (see: H. Wada: Gyosei saiban ─ Ho taisei kakueitsuki, in: Koza nihon kindai ho hattatsu shi, vol. 3, ed.: N. Ukai, Tokio 1958, at 102, 118;

K. Sakurai, H. Hashimoto, Gyosei ho, Tokio 2011, at 261 ff., cited after: H. Kaneko:

Scieżka reform sądowej kontroli administracji w Japonii i Polsce [The Path of Re- forms of Judicial Control of Administration in Japan and Poland], paper prepared to be published in Polish journal “Państwo i Prawo”)

6）　Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 1990, No 34, item 201 7）　Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 1995, No 74, item 368

8）　Enacted in April 2, 1997 (Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws], 1997, No 78, item 463)

(4)

duced the deep reform of judicial control of administrative activities in Poland, coming into force on 1 January 2004. The two most important laws, operating nowadays, are: the Act on the System of Administrative Courts^9） and the Act on Proceed- ings Before Administrative Courts.^10）

2. Current system of administrative courts

　The system of administrative control of administration is based on the principle of two-instance jurisdiction combined with the two organizational levels of administrative courts. The system of courts is shaped parallel to the administrative local structure of Poland as an uniform state (different than such federal states as Germany or Austria, that served as a model of judicial control in Poland). That is why 16 province administrative courts, being the first instance courts, are placed in the capital cities of provinces (voivodship - województwo). The second and final instance of this control has been handed to the Supreme Administrative Court (the SAC) located in War- saw.

　Province (voivodship) courts are divided into 2 or 3 departments, whilst the Supreme Administrative Court consists of 3 chambers (General Administrative, Financial and Economic), each divided into 2 departments.

　President of the SAC is appointed by the President of the State for 6 year-term from 2 candidates accepted by the Gener-

9）　Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 2002, No 153, item 1269 (thereafter: “the ASAC”)

10）　Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 2002, No 153, item 1270 (thereafter: “the APAC”)

(5)

al Assembly of Judges of the Court as a result of secret voting of all judges (actually ─ about 90 judges). President of the SAC, besides regular sitting in the court panels, presides the Gener- al Assembly and runs the court matters. The one of the most important of them is the budget of the SAC and of all administrative courts, established by the Sejm (Diet - chamber of the Polish parliament), what makes the all courts financially independent from the Cabinet Council, being the part of state administration.

　Judges od administrative courts (as well as the all judges in Polish courts), experiencing full jurisdictional independence,^11）

are appointed for an indefinite period by the President of Po- land on the recommendation of the general assemblies of the particular courts, the judge is heading to, approved by the Na- tional Council of the Judiciary (independent representation of Polish judges). The judges are immunized from the general responsibility and are not removable, unless the verdict of a disciplinary proceedings against judge removes him from the service (as the most severe sanction).

3. The subject and scope of the judicial control 3.1. The subject of control

　The present model of judicial control embraces practically all activities of administration and all matters the public administration has been engaged in. That means that all problems having public dimension, being decided by the administrative agencies, both state and self-government as well as other pub-

11）　Article 178 of Polish Constitution

(6)

lic agencies endowed in competence to decide (for example decisions of professional self-government or of authorities of public universities) might be subjected to the review by administrative courts.

　Article 184 of the Polish Constitution defines the cognition of the administrative courts as control of activity of public administration, placing in these frames also judging the accordance of all the normative acts enacted by self-governmental and local governmental organs with the statutes, leaving the shaping of extend of this control to statutory regulations. This general constitutional rule has been developed by the contents of Arti- cle 3 and Article 4 of the APAC.

　According to the Article 3 of the APAC, review of the activity of public administration by administrative courts^12） shall include adjudicating on complaints against:

-(1) administrative decisions

-(2) orders made in administrative proceedings, which are subject to interlocutory appeal or those concluding the proceed- ing, as well as orders resolving the case in its merits,

-(3) orders made in enforcement proceedings or proceedings to secure claims,

-(4) acts or actions, other than those specified in subparagraphs 1─3, made within the area of public administration con- cerning the rights or obligations ensuing from provisions of law,

12）　See: J.P. Tarno: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi. Komen- tarz [Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, A Commentary, Warsaw 2010, at 20─44

(7)

-(4a) written interpretations of tax law provided in individual cases

-(5) enactments issued by local government authorities and territorial agencies of government administration

-(6) enactments issued by units of local government and their associations, other than those specified in subparagraph 5, in respect of matters falling within the scope of public administration,

-(7) acts of supervision over activities of local government authorities, (that enables the court to control the way in which the representation of central government controls the self-government activity)

-(8) failure to act or protraction of the proceedings in instances specified in subparagraphs 1 to 4a.

　According to Article 4 of the APAC, administrative courts shall resolve jurisdictional disputes between local government authorities and between self-government appellate boards, unless a separate statute provides otherwise, and shall resolve disputes as to competence between local government authorities and government administration agencies.

　There are some characteristic aspects of that catalogue. First of all, one should notice, that over 80% of cases in administrative courts deal with individual decisions that apply administrative law to the individual matters both brought to the organ by the persons or organizations and initiated by the organ itself (based on the realization of the statutory defined tasks of administration).

　However, not only the decisions, but also the lack of decision and protraction in activeness are being controlled as well,

(8)

since both failures enable the people, legal persons or NGO to request the proper activity of administration (as a rule, decision should be taken in 30 days from the initiation of proceedings).

　Another important and characteristic point of this control is the judicial review of interpretation on tax law, being the activity of tax offices and Ministry of Finances as a result of con- crete ask brought by the tax-payer.

　One should notice also very important competence of the administrative courts, somehow similar to that obtained by the constitutional courts, to control the local law located both at province (voivodship) or county level, enacted by local administrative authorities in the form of resolutions, ordinances or regulations, in respect of their conformity with the statutory law (for instance in the field of county space planning law).

3.2. The scope of control

　1. Judicial control in the Polish model is preceded by the control undertaken within the two instances of administrative decision-making. That means that each decision of the first instance is primarily reviewed by internal appellate control of administrative organ of higher instance. Review is initiated by the party and may lead to the affirmation of decision, quashing it with deciding the merits or remanding decision for reconsid- eration of the previously deciding organ.^13）

　The judicial control of public administration activities deals with the conformity of this activity with procedural and sub-

13）　According to the Article 138 of the CAP

(9)

stantial norms.^14） That embraces: 1) control of the competence of the administrative organ making the decision (through regular control as well as through jurisdictional and competence claims^15）); 2) control of the observance of the procedural rules in administrative decision-making process, regulated first of all in the CAP of 1960, covering all administrative proceedings, (some proceedings have separate regulation, like Tax Ordi- nance of 1997^16）); 3) control of the way in that the administrative organ established the facts of the case (according to the CAP, organ is obliged to establish facts precisely and on its own initiative, based on the substantial truth theory, as well as obliged to evaluate them many-sided (court does not establish the facts, except an optional reference to the documents); 4) control of the selection of substantial regulations implemented as a base of decision, embracing both large range of state (constitutional, statutory, executive, internally biding, etc.) and over-state (international law, EU law) rules; 5) control of the interpretation of the regulations (both procedural and substan-

14）　Article 1 of the ASAC says: in § 1: “Administrative Courts shall administer justice through reviewing the activity of public administration and resolving disputes as to competence and jurisdiction between local government authorities, appellate boards of local government and between these authorities and government administration authorities” and in § 2 : “The review referred to in § 1 shall be performed from the point of view of conformity with law, unless otherwise provided by statute”. See also: T. Woś, H. Knysiak-Molczyk, M. Romańska: Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi. Komentarz [Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, A Commentary, Warsaw 2009, at 29─34

15）　Article 4 of the APAC

16）　Law of August 29, 1997 Ordynacja podatkowa [Tax Ordinance], Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws], 1997, No 137, item 926

(10)

tial ones), among which the most important matters deal with the using of the language (semantics and syntax) and systemic interpretation rules, the using of the legal principles at the interpretation and the functional rules of interpretation or solv- ing the interpretative collisions; 6) control of the justification (written form of the reasons) of the decision, that has to follow each decision, except the one that fully realizes the motion and does not touch the rights of others and that has to include statement on the established facts, applied proofs and reasons why other facts and proofs had not been recognized as well as the explanation of the legal base of decision.^17）

　2. The judicial control deals also with a way in that activity of administration is performed. That includes three most sensi- tive problems of control, bringing it as a matter of fact to the statement of rather limited scope of judicial intervention.

　The first one deals with administrative discretion (free recog- nition, Freie Ermessen^18）), that happens in the situations, in which the regulation says, without clear conditions and terms, that the administration may act based on its own initiative (what means that such activity depends in fact on political evaluation of the decisional situation).

　The second one touches the judicial control of rightness of the administrative decision (for instance, if it is based on general clauses of “social interest”, “just interest of citizens”^19） or

17）　Article 107 paragraph 3 of the CAP

18）　See for example: G. Schmidt-Eichstaedt: Ermessen Beurteilungspielraum und eigenverantwortliche Handeln der Verwaltung, “Archiv fur Offentliches Recht”, 1973, No 2, passim

19）　Article 7 of the CAP

(11)

other vague and axiologically involved criteria like “rules of social coexistence” or “public interest”). These criteria may push the arguments of administrative decision towards strict political values, in relation to which the court controls rather the way in that the general axiological clauses are implemented (for instance ─ how general axiology is balanced with individual values and interests through weighing the extra-legal values) than precisely defines the values or directly controls their contents.

　And finally, the third problems deals with the control of rationality of administrative action embracing both, the evaluation of consequence and coherence of administrative reasoning and evaluation of social dimension and effectiveness of decision-making processes.

　Generally speaking, the scope of the judicial control, based on the assumption of conformity of administrative activity with the law (legality of decisional process and decision itself) is rather limited. It does not cover the finding or verification of the established facts (except marginal search of documents delivered to the court). It deals with rather restricted scale and is conducted carefully, especially if the administrative recogni- tion decisions or implementation of general clauses by administrative organ are considered. And the criterion of rationality cannot be, at this model, an effective remedy in all cases the court would like to remove wrong administrative decision.

That is why the theoretical and practical debate on the scope of the judicial control, conducted almost from the time of the reform, is necessary and should lead to more crucial develop- ments.

(12)

4. Procedure and judgments of administrative courts (selected issues)

4.1. The voivodship courts

　1. The model of procedure in voivodship administrative court has been based on the assumption, that the case may be brought to the court as a complaint, arguing that the internal administrative control undertaken by the second administrative instance did not eliminated the failures of the basic decision or decision-making process (competence or procedural ones) of the organ of the first instance, in effect of which the author of complaint argues that the second instance administrative decision should be dismissed or that such decision is invalid.

　Complaint may be brought to the court (within 30 days from the delivery of administrative decision) by person (individuals, legal persons, NGOʼs) having legal interest in it (the decision touches his rights or duties^20）). There is no concept of actio popularis in Polish procedure, but selected agencies, as for ex- ample the public prosecutor or Ombudsman, may intervene on behalf of other persons.^21） The individual petitioner does not have to be represented by professional lawyer.

　The complaint is being brought to the court through the second administrative instance authority whose action or failure to act is challenged. That creates the organʼs duty of reacting

20）　See: B. Adamiak, J. Borkowski: Postępowanie administracyjne i sądowoadmini- stracyjne [Administrative and Judicial-Administrative Proceedings], Warszawa 2008, at 422─430

(13)

on the complaint (answering it), giving at the same time the chance to change its own decision if the arguments of complaint are recognized by the organ.

　The APAC predicts an optional mediation (on the motion of complainant) conducted by the judge or law clerk.^22） The ob- servation of the Polish practice leads to the conclusion, that the number of mediations is very limited, since, besides the lack of tradition of mediation in Polish legal order, it is rather difficult to mediate the legality of decision and, what is also important, the administration prefers to have case solved by the court than to work on a kind of compromise with the individual (who before was an addressee of administrative decision).^23）

　The general scope of the judicial control, exercised by the voivodship courts, deals with controlling the legality of decision within the limits of the case, not being however bound by the demand and by the legal basis pointed out of the complaint. In both matters court decides itself, what might be later controlled by the Supreme Administrative Court in the cassation procedure.

　The case is decided (at the open hearings procedure) by a panel of three judges, deciding by majority of votes. One of them is a judge reporting the case to the audience at the beginning of proceedings, asking in practice the majority of questions and, after decision is taken, giving the oral reasons and preparing the written reasons (justification).

　2. Basic judgments of the voivodship courts, according to the

23）　See: Z. Kmieciak: Mediacja i koncyliacja w prawie administracyjnym [Mediation and Conciliation in the Administrative Law] Kraków 2004, passim;

(14)

APAC,^24） might bring three different solutions.

　The first one deals with the dismissing of the complaint. That means affirmation of decisional process and the contents of administrative decision from the point of conformity with the procedural and substantial law. In effect, controlled decision of administrative organ as well as an order or an act enacted by local authorities, being approved as conformable to the law, may be executed by administration.

　The second solution deals with setting aside the decision in whole or in part on the base that there has been violation of substantial and/or procedural law). That means that the administrative procedure starts again and, to make decision conformable to the law, administrative agency must make a new decision, taking into consideration all instructions given by the court in the justification of the judgment. The new decision might be controlled again for various reasons, one of which deals with the failure in following the courtʼs instructions.

　The third basic solution finds the challenged decision invalid in whole or part (if there was the most serious breach of competence, procedural or substantial rules^25）). That means that the decision did not act at all (as if there was no decision) and the legal status return to the pre-decision stage.

　In the first case the written reasons are prepared on demand of the party, while in the second and third ones ─ the reporting judge prepares the written justification ex officio (in all case in 2-weeks period).

　Other judgments of voivodship administrative courts deal

24）　Articles 145 and 151 of APAC 25）　Article 156 of the CAP

(15)

with various types of administrative activities being controlled.^26） They include, among others, setting aside or declar- ing of no effect of act or interpretation in the tax law; finding invalidity of the act (resolution or order) of self-government body (what means return to the situation before the act was enacted); setting aside of act of governmental supervision over self-government resolutions (what means that resolution dismissed by this supervision is valid and may bring its effects);

obliging the administrative agency to issue the act within specified time limits, as an effect of failure to act at all or delayed activity (this order might be followed by the fine imposed on the head of the administrative organ by the court).

4.2. The Supreme Administrative Court

　1. The procedure in Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) is based on the model of cassation complaint against the judgment of the voivodship court, brought to the SAC by party (represented by professional lawyer) of the court proceedings (individual, legal person, organization as well as the administrative organ the decision of which has been set aside or recognized as invalid) or selected public agencies (like public prosecutor, Ombudsman).^27）

　The cassation complaint to SAC is much more formalized than the complaint brought to voivodship court. It might be based on two reasons, operating separately or simultaneously.

The first one deals with the violation of substantive law (its im-

26）　Articles 146, 147, 148, 149 and 150 of APAC 27）　Article 173 of APAC

(16)

proper application and misinterpretation^28）) by the voivodship court, while the second one - with such violation of procedural rules, that could substantially affect the outcome of the case.^29）

The opposite party to the complainant might answer the complaint with own arguments.

　The SAC decides within the limits of the cassation complaints, what means that the base and the arguments of the complaints must be expressed precisely by the professional lawyer. Only the invalidity of proceedings are taken by the SAC ex officio even if they are not mentioned in the complaints.

　The case is decided by the panel of three judges of the SAC by majority of votes. One of the judges is appointed as judge- rapporteur, reporting the case to the audience and, after decision is taken, giving firstly oral reasons to the parties and audience and then preparing in one month period written reasons (all decision of SAC must be justified by the written reasons).

　2. The SAC might decide the case in two main types of judgment.^30） It may dismiss the cassation complaint, if the judgment of the voivodship court has not violated the law. The opposite solution leads to reversing the judgment in whole or in part and remanding the case for reexamination. The essential part of justification of this judgment consists of precise instruc-

28）　On the role of interpretation in administrative courtsʼ jurisdiction see: L.

Leszczyński: Orzekanie przez sądy administracyjne a kontrolna wykładnia prawa [The Administrative Courts Decisions and the Control of the Interpretation of Law], “Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Naukowego” [Scientific Volumes of Ad- ministrative Judiciary] 2010, No 5─6, at 267─278

29）　Article 174 of APAC

30）　Articles 184, 185, 187 of APAC

(17)

tions for the voivodship court, that must be followed in the new process (new cassation might be based on lack of realization of these instructions).

　Some other judgments might be passed by the regular panel of the SAC as well. For instance, the SAC may, reversing the judgment of the voivodship court, decide the case at once, if the procedural rules had not been violated. Other special decision of the regular panel (three judges) of the SAC deals, if there are serious doubts, with the suspension of the case and passing the defined problem to panel of seven judges of the SAC for the resolution.

　There are some special types of the decisions that might be made by the various panels of the SAC.

　The most important ones are above mentioned resolutions that might be passed by the 7-judges panel (on the motion of the 3-judges panel) or by the whole Chamber or by the whole Supreme Administrative Court. The two last ones have a general (abstract) character and are passed on the motion of the President of the Court, the Public Prosecutor General or Om- budsman on the base of lack of uniformity of jurisdiction of administrative courts.

　There are also decisions that transfer some legal problem to other courts. The first one deals with a passing, after the suspension of the case, the motion of the administrative court to the Constitutional Tribunal to decide on conformity of the statutory regulation (applied in the case) with the Constitution.

The second one is a motion of the administrative court to the Court of Justice of European Union on the interpretation of the EU law, applied in the proceedings.

(18)

5. Debate and some changes of the model of judicial control in Poland

　The 2002 reform of the administrative courts system in Po- land has been very successful. The enlargement of the courtsʼ cognition and increasing number of complaints brought in front of voivodship courts^31） are the most visible signs of stable confidence of the society in the results of this control. The effectiveness of the control of administration, marked by the reversing of about 1/3 of the administrative decisions by the voivodship courts, makes people, legal persons and NGOs more and more interested in the judicial review.

　The one of the results of reform of 2002 is an acceleration of the courtsʼ activities, making in 2014 the period of 3─4 months between the complaint and the voivodship courtsʼ judgments quite reasonable (especially if compared with about 9─10 months before the reform). On the contrary, the increasing number of cassation complaints from these judgments of 16 courts^32） brought to the SAC makes this period much longer (about 13─14 months in 2014).

　The debate on the further reform has been present as a mat-

31）　Marked by the numbers of complaints: 72 160 in 2012, 81 654 in 2013 and 84 162 in 2014 ─ see: Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Informacja o działalności sądów administracyjnych w 2014 r. [The supreme Administrative Court. Information on the Activities of Administrative Courts in 2014], Warsaw 2015

32）　17 787 cassation complaints had been brought to the SAC in 2014 (compared to 16 779 in 2013 and 15 017 in 2012) ─ see: Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Informa- cja o działalności sądów administracyjnych w 2014 r. [The supreme Administrative Court. Information on the Activities of Administrative Courts in 2014], Warsaw 2015

(19)

ter of fact form the time of the reform of 2002. In this number, also the problem of three-level administrative courts system that would equalize the organization of administrative courts with the organization of civil, labor and criminal courts ap- pears from the time to time. The most vital problem however deals with the participation of the administrative courts (at least at the voivodship level) in substantive control of administrative decisions what would mean creation of deeper control of legality (conformity with the law) of administrative activities than its “double cassation” review (first by voivodship court and then by control of this judgment by the SAC). The full realization of these postulates could be done through possibility of changing the contents of administrative decisions by voivodship courts and competence of examining the facts of the case (for instance through hearing the witnesses, etc.) in front of this court.

　Some, rather careful but visible answers to these and other questions have been developed quite recently, leading to the newest, 81 amendments to the various regulations of the APAC, accepted by the Polish legislature (Sejm) on April 9, 2015.^33）

　Among the most important changes one should mention first of all the option in that the voividship court orders the administrative organ to take the decision with the indication of the way the matter should be solved and, if the organ fails to fulfill this order, the court may confirm the existence of the right or

33）　Druk Sejmowy [Sejmʼs Journal] No 1633 (still, as for May 4^th, 2015, unpublished officially in Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws])

(20)

duty,^34） what means as a matter of fact deciding on behalf of the administrative organ. Such change mark the beginning of the long process of weakening the dominance of the cassation model of the control conducted by the voivodship administrative courts.

　Other important change, dealing with the auto-control of the voivodship courtʼs judgment leading to the setting aside the own judgment, if this court recognizes the cassation complaint as obviously justified,^35） may shorten the waiting time for the judgment of the SAC.

　There are also many other accepted changes, having rather more technical provenience, the impact on the model of judicial control would be resulted from the way of the application of the new rules in the judicial practice.

　As a whole, the judicial control of administrative activities, being the living instrument of the rule of law, must be as much coherent to the social and political changes as possible. That is also important for Poland, trying to find its own way, taking into consideration both ─ already functioning but still relatively new own solutions and adequate European traditions in struc- turing the administrative courts system.

34）　Article 145a of the APAC

35）　The new text of Article 179 of the APAC