Gloss to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 January 2025, case No. II GSK 1412/21. Refusal to enter a candidate on the list of advocates and the quashing by the Minister of Justice of the issued decision pursuant to Article 138 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure
Grzegorz Krawiec
Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowiehttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2949-5361
Sławomir Tkacz
Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicachhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2858-2930
Aleksandra Wentkowska
Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicachhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-2615
Abstract
The purpose of this commentary is to present and analyse important issues related to the interpretation of the concept of guaranteeing the proper practice of the profession of attorney in the context of refusal to enter an attorney on the list of attorneys and the Minister of Justice’s revocation of a decision made pursuant to Article 138 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The study aims to indicate the principles and limits of the assessment of this guarantee by professional self-government bodies and administrative supervisory authorities, considering the latest ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of January 22, 2025 (ref. No. II GSK 1412/21). The gloss also discusses the function of legal control of administrative decisions in the light of the provisions in question and presents conclusions on the correct application of Article 138 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in case law. The interpretation of Article 65 of the Law on the Bar, which specifies the conditions to be met by an individual applying for entry on the list of advocates, and in particular the criteria for assessing the applicant’s prior conduct (i.e., the guarantee of proper performance of the professional duties), has recently become a subject of heightened scholarly and institutional interest. The judgment under commentary was delivered in response to a cassation appeal lodged by the Praesidium of the Supreme Bar Council against the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 29 September 2020, file No. VI SA/Wa 885/20, in proceedings concerning a complaint against the decision of the Minister of Justice annulling a resolution refusing entry on the list of advocates. The factual background of the case involved a lawyer who, having successfully passed the bar examination in 2019, subsequently applied for entry on the list of advocates. The legal basis for refusal of entry on the list of advocates lies in the applicant’s failure to satisfy at least one of the statutory conditions outlined in Article 65(1)–(3) of the Law on the Bar. These prerequisites are not mutually exclusive but are of equal normative weight and significance.
Keywords:
The Law on the Bar, admission to the Bar list, guarantee of due professional conductReferences
Adamiak B. (red.), Weryfikacja rozstrzygnięć w postępowaniu administracyjnym ogólnym, seria: System Prawa Administracyjnego Procesowego, t. 2, cz. 5, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2019. Google Scholar
Kaczmarek P., O rękojmi prawidłowego wykonywania zawodu adwokata oraz radcy prawnego, „Przegląd Prawa Publicznego” 2015, nr 1. Google Scholar
Kaczmarek P., Tożsamość prawnika jako wykonawcy roli zawodowej, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2014. Google Scholar
Knysiak-Sudyka H. (red.), Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego. Komentarz, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2019. Google Scholar
Studziński W., Rękojmia należytego wykonywania zawodu adwokata w świetle orzecznictwa sądów administracyjnych i zmian ustawodawczych, „Palestra” 2010, nr 5–6. Google Scholar
Szydło M., Nabywanie uprawnień do wykonywania wolnych zawodów, „Państwo i Prawo” 2002, nr 7. Google Scholar
Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2949-5361
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
