@misc{Bieś-Srokosz_Paulina_Szczególne_2021,
 author={Bieś-Srokosz, Paulina},
 copyright={Copyright by Vidavnictvo L'vìvs'kogo nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu ìm. Ìvana Franka},
 copyright={Copyright by CNS},
 address={L'viv},
 howpublished={online},
 year={2021},
 publisher={Lʹvìvsʹkij nacìonalʹnij unìversitet ìmenì Ìvana Franka},
 language={pol},
 abstract={Public administration bodies decide in individual cases by means of administrative decisions. With the use of administrative decisions, administrative organs grant or as certain rights or obligations. Pursuant to the provisions of Administrative Procedure Code, a decision should be delivered to its addressee. The delivery should be effective and compliant with the provisions of Administrative Procedure Code so that the addressee could lodge an appeal within 14 days from the date of delivery. Two forms of introducing anadministrative decision into legal circulation should be distinguished. The primary and the first way is to deliver it in writing. By delivering a decision in writing, one should understand the delivery of its original. Each copy of the decision which is served on the parties must be signed by the person or persons empowered to issue it, so that each copyis an original decision. The second form of introducing an administrative decision into legal circulation is its delivery by means of electronic communication. The issuance of a decision in the form of an electronic document consists in drawing up such a document within the meaning of the Act and affixing it with a secure electronic signature, verified with a valid qualified certificate. Decisions that were issued in the form of an electronic document, pursuant to Art. 391 § 1, shall be served on the parties by means of electronic communication. Exceptionally, in the case of decisions in the form of an electronic document that have been affixed with a qualified electronic signature, a trusted signature or a personal signature. However, the key fact in this respect is that an administrative decision that will not be communicated to the party is still an act of no effect on the party. Therefore, the externalisation of the decision in relation to the party creates a new procedural situation (e.g., the possibility of appealing). Therefore, an administrative decision commences its legal existence upon publication or service of the party to the proceedings, and the authority which issued it is bound by that moment. But if there is no delivery, does it violate the addressee’s rights? Or perhaps it should be considered individually and referred to a given situation as discussed in the paper? An attempt to answer such a question wil lbe considered in this article by referring to the situation of a farmer who is not served by the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture with an administrative decision, but makes a transfer to a bank account.},
 abstract={Organ deržavnogo upravlìnnâ virìšuê spravi za dopomogoû admìnìstrativnih rìšenʹ. Cì rìšennâ ê admìnìstrativnimi aktami, na pìdstavì âkih organ vladi nadaê abo pìdtverdžuê vže ìsnuûče pravo či obov'âzok. Vìdpovìdno do norm kodeksu, admìnìstrativne rìšennâ maê buti vručene adresatovì. Porâdok vručennâ povinen buti efektivnim ì vìdpovìdati položennâm Kodeksu admìnìstrativnogo sudočinstva, ŝob adresat mìg oskaržiti rìšennâ protâgom 14 dnìv z dati jogo oderžannâ. Slìd rozrìznâti dvì formi vvedennâ admìnìstrativnogo rìšennâ v pravovij obìg. Osnovnim ì peršim sposobom ê vručennâ u pisʹmovìj formì. Pìd vručennâm rìšennâ v pisʹmovìj formì slìd rozumìti dostavku jogo origìnalu. Kožna kopìâ rìšennâ, âke vručaêtʹsâ storonam, povinna buti pìdpisana osoboû abo osobami, upovnovaženimi na ïï vidannâ, ŝob dokument mav silu origìnalu. Drugoû formoû vvedennâ admìnìstrativnogo rìšennâ v zakonnij obìg ê jogo vručennâ zasobami elektronnogo zv`âzku. Vidannâ rìšennâ u formì elektronnogo dokumenta – ce skladannâ takogo dokumentu zgìdno z zakonom pro dostup do publìčnoï ìnformacìï ta skrìplennâ jogo zahiŝenim elektronnim pìdpisom, verifìkovanim dìjsnim kvalìfìkovanim sertifìkatom. Rìšennâ, ŝo buli vidanì u formì elektronnogo dokumenta, vìdpovìdno do st. 391 § 1, vručaûtʹsâ storonam zasobami elektronnogo zv`âzku. U vinâtkovih vipadkah, u razì rìšenʹ u formì elektronnogo dokumenta, âkì buli skrìplenì kvalìfìkovanim elektronnim pìdpisom, dovìrenim pìdpisom abo osobistim pìdpisom. Klûčovim faktom u cʹomu pitannì ê te, ŝo admìnìstrativne rìšennâ, âke ne bude vručene storonì, vse ŝe ê aktom, ŝo ne maê nìâkogo vplivu na neï. Otže, eksternalìzacìâ rìšennâ stosovno storoni stvorûê novu procesualʹnu situacìû (napriklad, možlivìstʹ podannâ apelâcìï). Admìnìstrativne rìšennâ počinaê svoê zakonne ìsnuvannâ z momentu ogološennâ abo vručennâ storonì, ì organ, âkij jogo vidav, pov`âzanij z cim momentom. Tomu pitannâ, či nevručennâ rìšennâ adresatu ê porušennâm jogo prav, či cej priklad slìd rozglâdati okremo, posilaûčisʹ na konkretnu situacìû, napriklad, obgovorenu v stattì? Sproba vìdpovìsti na ce pitannâ – u proponovanìj stattì. Âk priklad rozglânuto situacìû fermera, âkomu Agentstvo restrukturizacìï ta modernìzacìï sìlʹsʹkogo gospodarstva ne vručilo admìnìstrativnogo rìšennâ, a zdìjsnilo perekaz na bankìvsʹkij rahunok.},
 type={text},
 title={Szczególne przepisy prawne zawarte w ustawach regulujących działalność agencji rządowych w Polsce kontra postępowanie przed sądami administracyjnymi : Wybrane zagadnienia},
 keywords={public administration body, administrative decision, appeal against decision, delivery of decision, proceeding before administrative courts, organ deržavnogo upravlìnnâ, admìnìstrativne rìšennâ, apelâcìâ do rìšennâ, vručennâ rìšennâ, procesi v admìnìstrativnih sudah},
}