The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18

This commentary discusses the case of the assessment of the plan’s compliance with the study of land use conditions and directions of land development, the issue of interpretation of the concepts of the blurred definitions and general clauses, and in the context of all provisions, the essence of the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Robert Stefanicki
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University 2022-06-01
Series:Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.umcs.pl/sil/article/view/12730
_version_ 1811339769786925056
author Robert Stefanicki
author_facet Robert Stefanicki
author_sort Robert Stefanicki
collection DOAJ
description This commentary discusses the case of the assessment of the plan’s compliance with the study of land use conditions and directions of land development, the issue of interpretation of the concepts of the blurred definitions and general clauses, and in the context of all provisions, the essence of the local plan and its effects on the addressees of this act. Refraining from repeating the planning procedure to the extent necessary is a significant violation of the procedure for preparing the local plan and results in the annulment of all the provisions of the local plan relating to the areas designated in the plan for which the violation occurred. The obligation to specify the intended use of the land in the local spatial development plan means the necessity to specify the method of its future development and use through such expressions that clearly indicate what function a given area is to perform. This does not mean, however, that the same area cannot have different purposes in the plan, and thus it is unacceptable to establish different functions for one area. The condition for such a solution is to establish that these functions are not mutually exclusive and are not contradictory. The above argumentation indicates that it is unacceptable to use multi-significant terms in the text part of the plan that may lead to inconsistent results of their interpretation and pure arbitrariness of legal uses.
first_indexed 2024-04-13T18:31:33Z
format Article
id doaj.art-79bf7fb3bfbc44058a67d720095e34cd
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1731-6375
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-13T18:31:33Z
publishDate 2022-06-01
publisher Maria Curie-Skłodowska University
record_format Article
series Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
spelling doaj.art-79bf7fb3bfbc44058a67d720095e34cd2022-12-22T02:35:03ZengMaria Curie-Skłodowska UniversityStudia Iuridica Lublinensia1731-63752022-06-0131229931310.17951/sil.2022.31.2.299-3139274The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18Robert Stefanicki0Uniwersytet WrocławskiThis commentary discusses the case of the assessment of the plan’s compliance with the study of land use conditions and directions of land development, the issue of interpretation of the concepts of the blurred definitions and general clauses, and in the context of all provisions, the essence of the local plan and its effects on the addressees of this act. Refraining from repeating the planning procedure to the extent necessary is a significant violation of the procedure for preparing the local plan and results in the annulment of all the provisions of the local plan relating to the areas designated in the plan for which the violation occurred. The obligation to specify the intended use of the land in the local spatial development plan means the necessity to specify the method of its future development and use through such expressions that clearly indicate what function a given area is to perform. This does not mean, however, that the same area cannot have different purposes in the plan, and thus it is unacceptable to establish different functions for one area. The condition for such a solution is to establish that these functions are not mutually exclusive and are not contradictory. The above argumentation indicates that it is unacceptable to use multi-significant terms in the text part of the plan that may lead to inconsistent results of their interpretation and pure arbitrariness of legal uses.https://journals.umcs.pl/sil/article/view/12730pojęcia nieostreklauzule generalnestudium uwarunkowańkierunki zagospodarowania przestrzennegonaruszenie procedury
spellingShingle Robert Stefanicki
The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
pojęcia nieostre
klauzule generalne
studium uwarunkowań
kierunki zagospodarowania przestrzennego
naruszenie procedury
title The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18
title_full The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18
title_fullStr The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18
title_full_unstemmed The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18
title_short The Need to Explicitly Identify (Unambiguously) to Determine How the Areas Would Be Used According to the Local Spatial Development Plan with Respect to Interpretation of the Concepts of the Blurred Definitions and General Clauses: Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2020, II OSK 893/18
title_sort need to explicitly identify unambiguously to determine how the areas would be used according to the local spatial development plan with respect to interpretation of the concepts of the blurred definitions and general clauses commentary on the judgment of the supreme administrative court of 13 february 2020 ii osk 893 18
topic pojęcia nieostre
klauzule generalne
studium uwarunkowań
kierunki zagospodarowania przestrzennego
naruszenie procedury
url https://journals.umcs.pl/sil/article/view/12730
work_keys_str_mv AT robertstefanicki theneedtoexplicitlyidentifyunambiguouslytodeterminehowtheareaswouldbeusedaccordingtothelocalspatialdevelopmentplanwithrespecttointerpretationoftheconceptsoftheblurreddefinitionsandgeneralclausescommentaryonthejudgmentofthesupremeadministrativecourtof13feb
AT robertstefanicki needtoexplicitlyidentifyunambiguouslytodeterminehowtheareaswouldbeusedaccordingtothelocalspatialdevelopmentplanwithrespecttointerpretationoftheconceptsoftheblurreddefinitionsandgeneralclausescommentaryonthejudgmentofthesupremeadministrativecourtof13februa