financial decisions

Participatory Budgeting in Poland AD 2019: Expectations, Changes and Reality

Author: Krzysztof Makowski
Institution: WSB University in Toruń
Year of publication: 2019
Source: Show
Pages: 642-652
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2019409
PDF: ppsy/48-4/ppsy2019409.pdf

Discussion whether to formalize participatory budgeting or not has been solved. Again, this time it has happened without scholars’ engagement. Given this situation, can we say that whoever is satisfied? The amendment of the act that introduced legal form of participatory budgeting as a new tool of public consultation does not meet anyone expectations. The reason to think so is that there is no new and compulsory form of public engagement in financial decisions. Moreover, organizational framework and the huge variety of using participatory budgeting have been turned to uniform pattern. Equally, it is hard to agree that implemented solutions, previously though as a way to increase citizens’ involvement in functioning and scrutiny part of public bodies, have been met.

Dochodzenie roszczeń związanych ze szkodą wyrządzoną wadliwą decyzją administracyjną

Author: Agnieszka Łąpieś-Rosińska
Institution: Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie
Year of publication: 2014
Source: Show
Pages: 163-179
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/tpn2014.2.10
PDF: tpn/7/TPN2014210.pdf

The issue of pursuance of claims connected with damage inflicted by defective administrative decision was regulated by section 160 of the Administrative Procedure Code (APC) until 1 September 2004. The section was the basis for pursuance of claim in connection with ascertaining invalidity of administrative decision or a decision issued with breach of the law. However, since 1 September 2004, i.e. after the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC) came into force, the basis for liability for damage caused by final administrative decision issued before 1 September 2004 – even if its invalidity or issuing with breach of law were established after that date – constitutes section 160 of the APC - but only in the aspect of determining the wrongful act or premisses of responsibility (clauses 1–3) and also prescription of claim (clause 6). It is not applicable to the procedure (mode) of pursuance of claim (clause 4&5). In the present law, regardless of the date of issue of decision, the appropriate and only way of pursuance of claim is a lawsuit in court. This means that the administrative mode has been excluded, regardless of the basis of responsibility arising from section 160 of the APC or section 417(clause 2) of the CPC. The range of responsibility for defective decision issued before 1 Sept 2004 has also been differentiated, since the party claiming damage can demand compensation for sustained losses and lost benefits on the basis of section 160 of the APC – if the damage was caused between 17 Oct 1997 and 31 Aug 2004. If the damage was caused before 17 Oct 1997, the party can only demand compensation for sustained losses.

Message to:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart