REPRESENTATION OF UNKNOWN HEIRS BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT — SELECTED ISSUES OF THE RIGHT OF ASSISTANCEThe guardian of inheritance may initiate proceedings before an administrative court when the interests of unknown heirs so require e.g. due to the need to determine the tax liability included in the estate. In the case of lodging a complaint to the administrative court by the guardian, he may apply for exemption from court costs because he has not been relieved expressis verbis from incurring them under the law. The guardian of the inheritance may also apply for the appointment of an public attorney because of the right to court, especially when a professional representative is required to draft an appeal. Not always the guardian is a professional attorney advocate, legal counselor, tax advisor who can submit such a remedy by representing the interests of unknown heirs within. In the case of submitting the application with demand of granting the right of assistance it should have been taken into account that the guardian represents the interests of the inheritance. In consequence, the application should present actual information about the inheritance.
The present study aims to reconstruct selected issues related to the position of the curator of the estate proceedings before administrative courts. The analysis includes basically applicable procedural regulations supplemented with practice shaped by courts (both administrative courts and common courts). Determining the scope of application of the regulations in force is to facilitate the answer to the question regarding the possibility of applying for the right of assistance by the curator of the estate. The reconstructed model of proceeding in Polish legal system taking into account not only the views presented in the literature, but also the views extracted from previous court records. As a consequence, the article attempts to combine theoretical views with practical views derived from the jurisprudence of administrative courts and common courts.
The curator of the estate may be established by a common court not only from office but also at the request of an administrative court. The rules determining the award of remuneration for actions taken before an administrative court in such a case come from procedural and material law provisions. However, they do not provide in an exhaustive way all the cases of granting remuneration to the curator of the estate in respect of the performed function. As a result, there is a need to solve such problems involving rules that are not explicitly expressed in the applicable regulations. This leaves the possibility to propose solutions for this kind of situation in practice. Due to the demand for consistency of the legal system, it is necessary to attempt to identify the entities responsible for covering receivables on the basis of the applicable regulations. Depending on the actions taken by the curator of the estate, this may be a court of inheritance or a governmental or local government administration body. Due to the postulate of legal certainty, it is necessary to postulate taking into account the legal opinions functioning in the literature in order to introduce regulations that will be considered exhaustive, from the point of view of entities applying the law. ; Kurator spadku może zostać ustanowiony przez sąd powszechny nie tylko z urzędu, lecz także na wniosek sądu administracyjnego. Reguły określające przyznanie wynagrodzenia za czynności podejmowane przed sądem administracyjnym w takim przypadku pozostają zawarte w przepisach prawa procesowego oraz prawa materialnego prywatnego. Nie przewidują one jednak w sposób wyczerpujący wszystkich przypadków przyznania wynagrodzenia kuratorowi spadku z tytułu sprawowanej funkcji. W efekcie pojawia się potrzeba rozwiązania takich problemów za pośrednictwem reguł, które nie zostały wprost wyrażone w obowiązujących przepisach. Stwarza to zatem możliwość zaproponowania rozwiązań tego rodzaju sytuacji w praktyce. Z uwagi na postulat zachowania spójności systemu prawa należy podejmować próby określenia podmiotów odpowiedzialnych za pokrycie omawianych należności na podstawie obowiązujących regulacji. W zależności od czynności podejmowanych przez kuratora spadku może to być sąd spadku bądź organ administracji publicznej lub samorządowej. Z uwagi na postulat pewności prawa należy postulować uwzględnienie funkcjonujących w literaturze poglądów prawnych w celu wprowadzenia regulacji, które będą uznawane za wyczerpujące z punktu widzenia podmiotów stosujących prawo.
Currently the preparation of the new 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework period is taking place in all areas - e.g. the sectorial legislation, such as the establishment of the new system of Cohesion Policy, is in progress. The rules are being formed in the spirit of a new approach; result orientation will become the main goal which requires a change of attitude in the operation of the institution system. Poland and Hungary are two cohesion countries, both of them using a significant amount of structural funds to finance public investments. Despite the common regulation at EU level the two countries are seemingly choosing different solutions in order to guarantee smoother implementation that will allow policy objectives and results to be achieved more effectively – Hungary is centralizing and Poland is rather decentralizing the system. What is behind this phenomenon? Which is the best way to strengthen the efficiency of the cohesion policy? Our paper will present the institutions systems and mechanism, administrative procedures working in the cohesion policy and compare the Polish and Hungarian systems. It will analyze the directions of changes under the new cohesion policy regulation with regard to the functioning institutions system and national specificities. At the end of our analysis we try to identify good practices and make general recommendations.
Currently the preparation of the new 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework period is taking place in all areas - e.g. the sectorial legislation, such as the establishment of the new system of Cohesion Policy, is in progress. The rules are being formed in the spirit of a new approach; result orientation will become the main goal which requires a change of attitude in the operation of the institution system. Poland and Hungary are two cohesion countries, both of them using a significant amount of structural funds to finance public investments. Despite the common regulation at EU level the two countries are seemingly choosing different solutions in order to guarantee smoother implementation that will allow policy objectives and results to be achieved more effectively – Hungary is centralizing and Poland is rather decentralizing the system. What is behind this phenomenon? Which is the best way to strengthen the efficiency of the cohesion policy? Our paper will present the institutions systems and mechanism, administrative procedures working in the cohesion policy and compare the Polish and Hungarian systems. It will analyze the directions of changes under the new cohesion policy regulation with regard to the functioning institutions system and national specificities. At the end of our analysis we try to identify good practices and make general recommendations.
Adoption of the EU budget involves drafting of EU regulations that provide a uniform framework for spending the allocated funds. Such was also the case in the current period of programming EU funds what are spent pursuant to regulations that are directly binding in all Member States. The Polish legislator has introduced domestic regulations which accommodate a number of legal definitions including one of the term 'beneficiary', which in essence refers to provisions laid down in EU regulations. As a consequence, it means that EU laws that are subject to officially binding interpretation of the Court of Justice should be applied accordingly. Earlier decisions which addressed both the rights and obligations of the 'beneficiary' must be recognized as at least substantiated for the needs of implementing the Cohesion Policy. This article aims to analyse and assess the practice of implementing the term 'beneficiary' in the European Union from the perspective of European Union law in the context of Cohesion Policy. It considers present Polish legislative changes which followed the changes in at the Union level in the area of Cohesion Policy concerning the term 'beneficiary'. The author mainly use the formal-dogmatic method typical to law studies. The author analyse the case-law concerning the term 'beneficiary' in Cohesion Policy. The analysis is based on the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The assessment includes only relevant judgements issued by the European Court Justice, which still play a significant role in present legislative changes driven at the Union level regarding Cohesion Policy. This text provides an overview of the general requirements for implementing European Law in accordance with the basic standards construed by the European Court of Justice. The paper deals with the autonomous interpretation of the term 'beneficiary' in the procedure of distributing EU in the field of Cohesion Policy. The author indicates the applicable interpretation of the scope of the term 'beneficiary' and outlines how the state administration bodies in the domestic legal system are charged with enforcing the term 'beneficiary'. In conclusion of this paper, the author points out that the European Court of Justice did not directly construe the legal definition 'beneficiary' existing in European law. However, the optimal functioning of administrative bodies of Member States should take into consideration some judgements of ECJ concerning the fore-mentioned term. Such proceedings can be helpful in adjusting the legal system of implementation of Cohesion Policy in every Member State. More precisely, such proceedings are necessary to adapt appropriately the provisions of the legislative changes existing in the present EU regulation on the Cohesion Policy. In consequence, it can also eliminate potential administrative barriers and give more protection to the actors applying for EU grants.
