The passivity of public administration bodies – inaction or prolonged conduct of administrative proceedings – is undoubtedly a pathological, undesirable state. Therefore, the legislator is trying to remedy this by expanding regulations aimed at counteracting the inertia of administrative bodies. The key legal remedy aimed at enforcing the handling of a case by a public administration body is a reminder. Under art. 37 § 3a of the Act of 14 June 1960 – the Code of Administrative Procedure, which was recently added to the general matter of administrative procedure, the legislator demands that the reminder not be filed prematurely, i.e. before the expiry of the deadline specified in art. 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure or in special provisions. However, if this happens, the body conducting the proceedings leaves the reminder unexamined. The primary goal of the study is to examine the aforementioned norm from art. 37 § 3a primarily from the point of view of the effectiveness of a complaint filed with a provincial administrative court regarding inaction or excessive length of proceedings in a situation where the reminder preceding the complaint was filed prematurely.

In this commented resolution, the Supreme Administrative Court had to revolve a legal issue regarding the temporal scope of application of the provision of Art. 30 section 1 point 6 of the Act on special rules for eliminating the legal effects of reprivatization decisions regarding Warsaw real estate, issued in violation of the law. This study assumes, unlike has been said in the resolution, that the circumstances specified in Art. 30 section 1 point 6 of the Reprivatization Act may constitute grounds for repealing the reprivatization decision if they occurred after the date of entry into force of this Act. According to the glossary, this view is supported by the theoretical structure of the administrative legal relationship used in the judicial practice of administrative courts, as well as the sanctioning nature of administrative decisions issued on the basis of Art. 30 section 1 point 6 of the Reprivatization Act.

The judicature of the administrative courts shows a lack of uniformity in assessing the admissibility of lodging of the appeal to the administrative court on the resolution of the commune council on holding a referendum on the dismissal of the commune head (mayor, president of the city) by the person holding the office of the executive body of the commune. For a long time, the dominating position was in favour of the admissibility of a complaint in such cases, due to the provision of judicial protection to the commune head (mayor, president of the city) in a case aimed at examining the legality of an act of a commune body. However, a different view was expressed e.g. in the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of October 19, 2022, ref. act III OSK 1560/22. According to the glossator, this view deserves full approval, because in the case of these resolutions, it is impossible to speak of a violation of a legal interest (entitlement), on which the legislator based the effective lodging of the appeal to the administrative court.