Suchergebnisse

Resolving Legal and Administrative Obstacles in the EU
Cross‑border Policy In the face of the crises in the European Union, it has become necessary to review the EU cohesion policy. This new approach can be seen in the recently introduced solutions, which are aimed at the development of cross‑border regions and the elimination of disproportions between them. However, they are not effective enough. Therefore, it is proposed to use further instruments in order to enforce changes in the legal and institutional environment in the regions. This idea is extended in the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross‑border context, which enables a direct application of law of one member state in a cross‑border region of the neighbouring country. The functioning of such mechanism will be a test of the durability of European integration and at the same time will verify if the Polish legal and political system belongs to modern Europe.

Zamierzeniem artykułu jest refleksja nad przyczynami i konsekwencjami proceduralizacji prawa. Materiał źródłowy stanowią wypowiedzi sędziów Sądu Najwyższego oraz Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego, pochodzące z publikowanych uzasadnień uchwał lub orzeczeń tych sądów. Diagnozie poddano przede wszystkim orzecznictwo pochodzące z ostatnich kilku roczników, przyjmując, że jego treść odnotowująca dorobek wcześniejszy obejmuje aktualne problemy stosowania prawa procesowego. Z przeprowadzonych badań wynikają tezy o wzroście aktywności sędziów w sferze prawa procesowego, skutkujące poszerzaniem jurysdykcji sądowej oraz autonomizowaniem instytucji proceduralnych. Jednak kłopoty ze sprawnością i efektywnością rozpoznawania spraw powodują, że w dyskursie sędziowskim zaczynają dominować problemy organizacyjne lub techniczne. Wynikają one, w ocenie autora, nie tylko z niedostatków prawodawstwa, lecz także z określonej postawy sędziów wobec problemów proceduralnych. Utrwalanie zachowań legitymistycznych oraz brak zaangażowania aksjologicznego sprzyjają tworzeniu barier komunikacyjnych, co w konsekwencji godzi w materialne funkcje i cele ochrony sądowej.

EU law obliges Member States to introduce such management and control systems for the implementation of financial instruments on their territory to ensure their proper functioning and compliance with the objectives and principles of EU development policy. Within the limits set by the principles and provisions of treaty and statutory law, Member States are free to design these systems. The aim of the article is to present an outline of the national model for the implementation of EU funds in Poland from a procedural perspective (described in full detail in the author's monograph cited below). The study mainly used a methodology of analytical research (modelling) and doctrinal legal research (analysis of subject literature) with elements of comparative legal research. The analysis shows that the research results indicate that the most frequently used and at the same time the basic method of implementing development policy instruments is using special administrative procedures. These procedures (referred to in the doctrine as third generation procedures) differ from the general administrative procedure in certain elements like stronger formalization, accelerating the trial, methods of proof, remedies, and others. Due to the administrative nature of these proceedings, the control of decisions or other acts issued in them is exercised before administrative courts. Only some disputes relating to claims arising from co-finance decision or contracts and other claims in contractual or tortious matters are settled in the polish common courts. Such construction and specificity of the characterized system is justified by the purposes and functions of EU development policy and nature of its financial instruments. Also for this reason the requirements placed on implementation procedures in terms of their public accessibility and functionality should be seen from a different perspective than standard jurisdictional procedures, designed for general administrative or civil matters.