Glosa aprobująca do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z 1 grudnia 2020 r., sygn. akt II OSK 1580/18 – Niedopuszczalność stosowania wykładni zawężającej wyrażenia „działka sąsiednia dostępna z tej samej drogi publicznej”

Maciej Mączyński
{"title":"Glosa aprobująca do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z 1 grudnia 2020 r., sygn. akt II OSK 1580/18 – Niedopuszczalność stosowania wykładni zawężającej wyrażenia „działka sąsiednia dostępna z tej samej drogi publicznej”","authors":"Maciej Mączyński","doi":"10.14746/spp.2022.2.38.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The cited judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court focuses on the meaning of the expression “access from the same public road”. The judgment of the Court of Second Instance deserves to be approved because the recitals of this judgment take into account the right to develop the plot to which the investor holds the legal title, the broad understanding of ‘neighborhood’, as well as the values that constitute the ratio legis of the Act on spatial planning and development.The rationale of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision results primarily from the fact that a narrow understanding of neighbourhood which is prompted by the linguistic interpretation was not deemed sufficient. Referring to the jurisprudence, and above all the legislative activity of the Supreme Administrative Court and the doctrine of administrative law, it should have been concluded that the effects of the linguistic interpretation were legitimately checked from the point of view of the legislator’s goal when enacting the Act on Spatial Planning and Development. Therefore, it was necessary to make a purposive interpretation that justifies the need to take into account the right to develop a building plot, take into consideration values such as spatial order, sustainable development, ownership and public interest, as well as the interest of third parties.The position of the judgment under review is not uniform in the jurisprudence. However, it does take into account the need to weigh up the disputed interests. Although the right of ownership is significantly limited in the planning and legal regulations, it is unacceptable to deprive it of its use only due to the assumption that neighbourhood should be understood as the contact of two plots or their access to the same public road.","PeriodicalId":176818,"journal":{"name":"Studia Prawa Publicznego","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Prawa Publicznego","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/spp.2022.2.38.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The cited judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court focuses on the meaning of the expression “access from the same public road”. The judgment of the Court of Second Instance deserves to be approved because the recitals of this judgment take into account the right to develop the plot to which the investor holds the legal title, the broad understanding of ‘neighborhood’, as well as the values that constitute the ratio legis of the Act on spatial planning and development.The rationale of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision results primarily from the fact that a narrow understanding of neighbourhood which is prompted by the linguistic interpretation was not deemed sufficient. Referring to the jurisprudence, and above all the legislative activity of the Supreme Administrative Court and the doctrine of administrative law, it should have been concluded that the effects of the linguistic interpretation were legitimately checked from the point of view of the legislator’s goal when enacting the Act on Spatial Planning and Development. Therefore, it was necessary to make a purposive interpretation that justifies the need to take into account the right to develop a building plot, take into consideration values such as spatial order, sustainable development, ownership and public interest, as well as the interest of third parties.The position of the judgment under review is not uniform in the jurisprudence. However, it does take into account the need to weigh up the disputed interests. Although the right of ownership is significantly limited in the planning and legal regulations, it is unacceptable to deprive it of its use only due to the assumption that neighbourhood should be understood as the contact of two plots or their access to the same public road.
引用的最高行政法院的判决侧重于“从同一公共道路进入”这一表述的含义。二审法院的判决值得批准,因为该判决的陈述考虑到了投资者拥有合法所有权的地块的开发权,对“邻里”的广泛理解,以及构成《空间规划与开发法》比例法律的价值观。最高行政法院作出裁决的理由主要是由于这样一个事实,即由语言解释引起的对邻里的狭隘理解被认为是不够的。参考法理,首先是最高行政法院的立法活动和行政法学说,应该得出结论,从立法者制定《空间规划与开发法》的目的的角度来看,语言解释的效果是合理的。因此,有必要作出一个有目的的解释,证明有必要考虑到开发建筑地块的权利,考虑到诸如空间秩序、可持续发展、所有权和公共利益以及第三方利益等价值。被审查判决的地位在法学界并不统一。然而,它确实考虑到需要权衡有争议的利益。虽然所有权在规划和法律法规中受到很大限制,但仅仅因为邻里应该被理解为两个地块的接触或它们通往同一条公共道路的假设而剥夺它的使用是不可接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信