The subject of the gloss is the partially critical assessment of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 January 2023, II OSK 139/20. In the commented judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court assumed that the demolition order cannot be addressed to the investor if the latter would not comply with the decision. In such a situation, this obligation should be borne by the property owner. The above requires a more in-depth commentary (taking into account the factual circumstances of the case) and embedding these considerations in the already existing jurisprudence of administrative courts.

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''.