Abstract

In its decision commented in this gloss the Supreme Administrative Court assumed that an act or action against which a complaint could be submitted to an administrative court may be deemed as corresponding with the Meaning of Art. 3 § 2.4 of the Act on proceedings before administrative courts when the act (action) is taken in an individual case, is addressed to a designated administered entity, refers to an entitlement or duty of that entity, while the entitlement and duty the act (action) refers to are set out in the generally applicable legislation. In the view of the Court the case of refusing publication of the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal in the Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland of 9 March 2016, K 47/15, in which the Together Party (Partia Razem) filed a complaint against the act of the Prime Minister is not covered by that rule. The author critically assessed that position exposing an error in interpretation consisting in a groundless assumption that acts and actions relating to entitlements or duties prescribed by law have to be taken in individual cases. In his opinion a distinction should be made between the attributes determining the individual character of a case (double concreteness: of the addressee and the object) and the act of individualisation per se, which requires – in order to perform the entitlement or duty prescribed by law – individual action of the administration. The author also noted that in case of the Prime Minister’s refusal to publish a judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal or inactivity in this respect, legal interest in filing a complaining to the administrative court is vested in all those who would invoke that it prevented them from asserting their rights via appropriate proceedings (administrative or judicial). Therefore, in order to have such a complaint considered by a court it is necessary to show a relationship between non-publication of a CT judgment and the possibility of exercising a certain right. Protection would be then extended to the procedural claim treated as an element without which the individual interest under the substantive law could not be satisfied.