The subject of the considerations contained in the text is the application of the principle of benefit, regulated in Art. 134 of the Real Estate Management Act. Its use in practice is limited by regulations § 49 point 4 of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers on the valuation of real estate. In the authors' opinion, this solution is contrary to the constitutional principle of the right to just compensation. Additionally, this leads to a violation of the principle of exclusivity of the act and the principle of hierarchy of the system of legal acts, and thus leads to a conflict of the content of the sub-statutory act with the regulation of the act. The authors paid particular attention to the duality of the jurisprudence of administrative courts in terms of the method of conducting legal assessment of constitutional provisions in the context of the application of the Act and the implementing regulation.

The subject of the gloss is a critical assessment of the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 30, 2022 (I OPS 1/22). In the voted verdict, the Supreme Administrative Court assumed that the claim assignment agreement itself, the subject of which is a claim for damages for the deduction of property ownership as a result of an event or act from the public law sphere, does not create the aforementioned claim on the part of the buyer, the attribute of the party within the meaning of art. 28 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, and the source of the legal interest referred to in the above-mentioned the norm is a norm of generally applicable law, and not the effects of a legal act performed by a civil law entity. The consequence of this is, in fact, the inadmissibility of - within the meaning of the adjudicating panel - the acquisition of a claim for damages, which is vested in Art. 128 sec. 1 u.g.n., by way of syngular succession. In the authors' opinion, these theses require in-depth, critical reflection.

The subject of the gloss is a critical assessment of the resolution of the Supreme Court of July 9, 2019 (I NSZP 1/19). In the voted verdict, the Supreme Court accepted that the legislator provided for 56 sec. 1 point 12 Energy Law Act the sanction is of an administrative nature and its primary purpose is prevention. The Supreme Court also indicated that, in its opinion, the correct interpretation of the above-mentioned legal norm leads to the conclusion that imposing a fine on the concessionaire for failure to comply with the obligation arising from the concession is permissible also when this obligation arises not only (directly) from the content of the administrative decision itself, but also in a situation where it can be reconstructed from generally applicable law regulations related to licensed activities. In the opinion of the authors, these theses require in-depth, critical reflection — both in terms of erroneous and too superficial identification of the function (goal) of the above-mentioned sanctions with administrative prevention, and as to the questionable interpretation of the concept of ''the obligation arising from the concession''.

The subject of the ruling was the legal assessment of the cassatory complaint lodged against the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw of November 30, 2018 (reference number V SA/Wa 1780/18). The controlled decision of the court of first instance went beyond the limits of its jurisdiction in the analysed case. The judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court can be considered only from a formal point of view. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed of a complaint claiming that the cassation was inadmissible. However, the way in which he did so and how he assessed the ruling of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw raise huge doubts as to the completeness of procedural regulations.

W wyniku przyjęcia nowych rozwiązań prawnych w roku 2017 pojawiła się w polskim postępowaniu administracyjnym instytucja mediacji, która nie była znana dotąd jako metoda działania administracji publicznej. Mediację ustawodawca postanowił uformować jako metodę ustalania faktów oraz dokonywania wykładni przepisów prawa w sprawach kończących się wydaniem decyzji administracyjnej. Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą dokonania analizy spójności przyjętych rozwiązań z dotychczas obowiązującym systemem załatwiania spraw administracyjnych. Najważniejszym ustaleniem dokonanym w ramach przeprowadzonej analizy jest stwierdzenie fundamentalnej sprzeczności celów mediacji z istotą polskiego postępowania administracyjnego. Jest to związane z brakiem sporu na tym etapie postępowania, co wyklucza możliwość zastosowania mediacji jako formy niespornego załatwienia sprawy. Pozostałe, stwierdzone w ramach analizy sprzeczności systemowe, potwierdzają tezę o braku możliwości zastosowania mediacji w praktyce załatwiania spraw administracyjnych.