In the next article in the series on issues related to local spatial development plans, we will focus on the issue of control of these acts in terms of legality by provincial administrative courts (WSA) and voivodes, whose task is to verify whether local spatial development plans (" MPZP ") adopted by municipal councils are constructed in a way that complies with the law.
The possibility of controlling the legality of the MPZP is expressed in the fact that both the Regional Administrative Court (pursuant to art. 3 § 2 points 5 and 6 of the Act of 30 August 2002 on Administrative Court Procedure ("PPSA") and the Voivode, pursuant to art. 86 in connection with art. 85 of the Act of 8 March 1990 on Local Government ("USG"), supervise the MPZP, i.e. they are obliged, among other things, to adjudicate on the content of the MPZP (but also on the graphic attachments themselves, which include, for example, areas under conservation protection), checking whether they are justified by law .
In practice, this means that if, for example, a commune violates the obligation to establish a mandatory number of parking spaces for a given area or decides to allocate agricultural land without excluding it from agricultural production in accordance with the Act of 3 February 1995 on the protection of agricultural and forest land, the specific plan may be invalidated in whole or in part and consequently lose its legal force.
Such an audit therefore focuses on examining the content of the plan itself and checking whether it is possible to reconcile it with generally applicable provisions, and in the case of voivodes, this audit is initiated ex officio , while in order to initiate prepared by an authorized entity is required
Control over resolutions regarding the local spatial development plan – voivode
After completing the planning procedure for the adoption of a specific local spatial development plan (Article 19 of the Spatial Development Plan) and adopting a resolution on the local spatial development plan (Article 20, Section 1 of the Spatial Development Plan), the commune head, mayor, or city submits the text of the resolution to the voivode, along with any annexes and planning documentation, for the purpose of assessing its compliance with legal provisions . The voivode may then, within 30 days:
1. publish the resolution on the local spatial development plan adopted by the municipal council in the provincial official journal, simultaneously indicating the date of its entry into force,
2. initiate supervisory proceedings and call on the commune to provide explanations, and then adopt a supervisory decision pursuant to Article 91 of the Municipal Spatial Development Act, in which it will indicate that the MPZP is unlawful and must consequently be repealed in whole or in part.
Such a supervisory decision suspends the implementation of the MPZP by operation of law, within the scope of the invalidity declaration, as of the date of its delivery. Interestingly, the municipality has the right to appeal against such a decision to the Regional Administrative Court, thus moving the legality review initially initiated by the voivode to the administrative court level and focusing on the legality of the decision, not the content of the resolution itself (which, at this stage, does not yet have the status of generally applicable law).
Therefore, in the case of voivodes, who are responsible for publishing resolutions passed by municipal councils in the provincial official journals, the law requires them to review the content of the act for legality before publication . Therefore, voivodes must act ex officio and review the content of each resolution passed by municipal councils (of course, not only regarding local spatial development plans, as this issue applies more broadly to all local legal acts passed by the municipality).
Control over resolutions regarding local spatial development plans – administrative courts
In the case of the Regional Administrative Court, the initiation of the substantive review of the MPZP begins only after the entity with a legal interest files a complaint with the administrative court against the resolution of the municipal council, simultaneously indicating in its content which provisions it accuses it of violating .
The appealed resolution must then indicate how the appealed resolution affects his legal title to the property. For example, he must explain that the specific planning designation significantly affects the scope of his ownership of a specific plot or plots . For example, this situation could involve the designation of a given area of agricultural land cultivated by a farmer in a local spatial development plan (MPZP) for residential or commercial use (MNU), or areas where fruit growing activities were conducted for reforestation.
In practice, complainants often point out that the new zoning designated by the municipality prevents them from implementing their intended development plans or significantly alters the surroundings of their property, for example, in the case of multi-family housing development regulations for an adjacent area. Drafting such a complaint often requires extensive knowledge of spatial planning and development regulations, but also requires linking this knowledge to key related issues, such as heritage protection or environmental protection law. While the court is not bound by the scope of such a complaint, for obvious reasons, our law firm emphasizes that such allegations should be formulated as precisely as possible and well-founded. We encourage those interested in legal assistance in this area to contact us, as our law firm has extensive experience in this field.
The Supreme Administrative Court correctly points out that demonstrating a legal interest requires meeting several conditions established by case law, including: a " direct, individualized, objective, and real" impact of the Local Spatial Development Plan on the complainant's rights (Supreme Administrative Court Judgment of 23 September 2024, II OSK 885/24, LEX No. 3817915). The Law Firm explains that examining this impact is crucial in this respect, because in the absence of such an interest, it is impossible to consider such a complaint and requires the court to dismiss the complaint (Article 58, item 5a, of the Administrative Court).
Turning to the very basis of such complaints, the most important provision is the wording of Article 28 of the Spatial Development Act, which states that, during such an inspection, if significant violations of the principles are found, the municipal council resolution is invalidated in whole or in part. The concept of a "significant violation," i.e., one that essentially constitutes a clear and unquestionable excess of planning authority, may be particularly problematic in this regard, requiring a case-by-case assessment by the Court based on the specific circumstances of the specific case ( see Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of December 1, 2017, IV SA/Wa 2536/17, LEX no. 2466946). Extensive case law is certainly helpful in understanding the issue of "planning authority."
It's also important to understand the nature of judicial review. In the event of a complaint filed with the Regional Administrative Court, other provisions of the plan are also subject to review, not just those relating to the areas where the properties to which the complainant holds legal title are located. This means that judicial review of the plan can have significant legal consequences even for those who previously submitted no comments on the matter and ignored the further course of the MPZP after its implementation. Therefore, the content of the MPZP and its potential status after the review should be constantly monitored, which is, of course, also the responsibility of our law firm.
Proceedings before the provincial administrative court end when a complaint against a resolution is upheld with a judgment declaring the resolution invalid in whole or in part (Article 147 § 1 of the Administrative Procedure Code). If such a judgment becomes final, the local spatial development plan (MPZP) loses its binding force and therefore no longer has legal effects. Alternatively, the court may also find that the MPZP does not violate the law and dismiss the complaint (in whole or in part).
It is worth remembering that such rulings of the Provincial Administrative Court may also be subject to review by the Supreme Administrative Court (" NSA ").
In summary, the mere adoption of a local development plan by the municipal council does not mean that it will come into effect. It is first subject to supervisory review by the voivode, who may declare the plan invalid in whole or in part. Furthermore, even after publication, it is possible for provisions of a local development plan to be declared invalid. Therefore, when examining the plan's content, it is also important to pay attention to relevant court rulings.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of July 7, 2025
author:
series editor
