Abstract

The article focuses on the issue whether an investor supervision inspector can be treated as the investor’s representative. The doctrine and judicature usually answer this question positively, invoking Art. 25.1 of the Construction Law. However, a more detailed analysis of the scope of representation described in the above provision arouses doubts as to the correctness of the prevalent position. The paper concludes that it is necessary to examine not only the obligation referred to in Art. 25.1 of the Construction Law, but also the required qualitfication listed in Art. 26 thereof. Only then it can be answered whether an inspector represents the investor. This issue will be discussed in the second part of the article.