1. Introduction

Amid increased focus on the quality of public administration, the issue of timely and effective administrative proceedings has become particularly significant. Delays in case processing and inactivity by administrative bodies not only undermine trust in public authority but also directly violate the rights of citizens and legal entities to fair administrative procedures. As of 2025, the study of this topic is especially relevant given the acceleration of European integration processes, the digitalisation of public administration, and the growing role of administrative justice in supervising the legality of actions (and inactions) of government bodies. Within the Polish legal system, there is a pressing need to clearly distinguish the legal categories of “inactivity” and “delay,” as uncertainty in law enforcement creates gaps that complicate holding officials accountable. The theoretical complexity of differentiating these phenomena intersects with practical challenges: judicial control, time guarantees, and compensation mechanisms do not always function adequately. Therefore, a detailed legal investigation of the differences between delay and inactivity is essential for improving administrative proceedings in Poland and upholding the rule of law.

In their study, Carelli and Peters^[1] examined the relationship between administrative-legal traditions and bureaucratic autonomy in four comparative jurisdictions. They concluded that strict regulation of deadlines and procedural discipline can significantly limit both excessive autonomy and administrative inactivity. However, the distinction between forms of procedural passivity was not analysed separately. Chvosta^[2] focused on the reform of Austrian administrative justice, highlighting its positive impact on reducing administrative irresponsibility. He emphasized the importance of clear procedural standards for effective law enforcement, yet did not provide a detailed distinction between delay and inactivity.

Ruschemeier and Hondrich^[3] addressed judicial influence on administrative governance, stressing that a lack of procedural certainty fosters delays and inactivity. They argued that this uncertainty hampers effective judicial control but did not propose a comprehensive classification of forms of such passivity. Hoffman^[4] analysed the limited scope of judicial review in Hungarian administrative law reforms, linking it to increased legal uncertainty. While highlighting the need for practical tools to ensure proper administrative action, his work did not detail distinctions between delay and inactivity.

Lienhard et al.^[5] theoretically explored how constitutional and administrative law shape public sector governance dynamics, noting that legal principles define limits of procedural activity. Yet they did not specifically address distinctions between types of procedural delay. Michalak and Kledzik^[6] investigated the structure of appellate review in Polish administrative proceedings, noting procedural overload and risks of excessive case duration. However, the theoretical differentiation between delay and inactivity was beyond their scope.

Paduch^[7] analysed the impact of legislative changes on the efficiency of administrative courts in Poland, particularly concerning appeal mechanisms. While noting increased institutional capacity to combat administrative inefficiency, he did not explore differentiation of passive behaviours. Petoft^[8] discussed general principles of administrative law, including the principle of reasonable time, stressing their universality across legal systems, but did not focus on specific forms of deadline violations.

Ponomarenko^[9] highlighted the significance of procedural components in US local administrative law for ensuring legal certainty, especially regarding deadlines as tools to prevent administrative arbitrariness, yet did not develop criteria distinguishing delay from inactivity. Szpórnóg^[10] provided an in-depth analysis of the differences between inactivity and delay in Polish administrative procedure, illustrating legal consequences of each and offering examples based on case law, making the study valuable in practical terms, although theoretical generalisation remained limited. Olszanowski^[11] examined supervisory mechanisms over administrative courts in Poland, focusing on case deadlines and institutional measures for improving judicial efficiency, but did not concentrate on classifying forms of procedural passivity of administrative bodies.

The overall review of the literature shows that although many authors acknowledge the importance of deadlines and efficiency in administrative proceedings, the problem of distinguishing delay from inactivity as distinct forms of procedural passivity remains underdeveloped. Much research is either focused on general principles of administrative law or on applied efficiency aspects, without providing a clear theoretical framework for classifying these phenomena. Thus, a significant scholarly gap exists regarding the systematic analysis of criteria and features that allow differentiation of administrative delay from complete inactivity. The aim of this study was to perform a legal analysis of the distinctions between inactivity and delay in Polish administrative proceedings, considering existing legislation and judicial practice. The objectives included: analysing the theoretical-legal understanding of the concepts of “inactivity” and “delay” in administrative law; characterising legislative frameworks regulating deadlines in Polish administrative procedure; examining case law and available administrative measures addressing administrative inactivity; identifying major law enforcement issues; and proposing possible directions for procedural regulation improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

The study employed a combination of general scientific and specialized legal methods, ensuring a comprehensive approach to analysing the nature and manifestations of inactivity and delay in administrative proceedings. For the lexical analysis of legal terminology, the method of legal hermeneutics was applied, which enabled the lexical-semantic interpretation of key concepts in the field of administrative proceedings, particularly taking into account the discrepancies in the usage of the terms “delay” and “inactivity” in the normative legal framework. The principal method of the study was formal-legal analysis, through which a structural and substantive examination of the current normative legal acts of Poland and international documents was conducted. The source base consisted of the following acts: Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland^[12], Law of Poland No. 179 “On a Complaint for Infringement of a Partys Right to Judicial Proceedings without Undue Delay”^[13], Law of Poland No. 153 “On Proceedings before Administrative Courts”^[14], Law of Poland No. 112 “On Access to Public Information”, Law of Poland No. 374 “On Special Solutions Related to the Prevention, Prevention and Combating of COVID-19, Other Infectious Diseases and Emergencies Caused by Them”^[15], Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union^[16], as well as the European Convention on Human Rights^[17]. The analysis of these acts allowed for identifying legislative mechanisms for preventing and responding to inactivity and delays in administrative procedures. The formal-legal analysis facilitated the comparison of the structure, content, and functional purpose of the aforementioned legal norms, as well as the identification of mechanisms used to prevent and overcome delays in administrative processes, particularly through the implementation of electronic document flow, legislative definition of deadlines at each stage of the proceedings, and the introduction of procedural sanctions for violations of the principle of timeliness. This approach laid a solid foundation for formulating conclusions and recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency of administrative proceedings.

The section devoted to judicial practice and administrative remedies to counteract inaction examined relevant decisions of administrative courts in Poland, in particular, Resolution of the Provincial Administrative Court in Lodz No. III SAB/Łd 142/22^[18], Resolution of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw No. VII SA/Wa 2064/23^[19] and Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court No. III OSK 204/22^[20]. Their study made it possible to clarify the judicial distinction between the concepts of delay and inactivity, as well as the practical consequences of applying the respective procedural law provisions in specific cases. To investigate the impact of digital technologies on the implementation of the principle of timeliness in administrative proceedings, a statistical method was used. The dynamics of the use of electronic tools for citizen interaction with administrative bodies in Poland during the period 2022-2024 were analysed. Empirical data were obtained from Kowarzyk^[21].

The methodological basis for studying the directions of improving legislative and practical mechanisms to counteract inactivity of administrative bodies in Poland was the structural-functional approach combined with elements of comparative legal analysis. The application of the structural-functional approach enabled revealing the connections between normative provisions and their actual application in administrative court practice, as well as assessing the effectiveness of legal protection instruments within the existing institutional framework. In turn, the comparative legal analysis – particularly with experience from Germany and general European doctrinal approaches – allowed for proposing substantiated recommendations to improve the relevant provisions of Polish administrative procedural legislation. The method of legal modelling was used to develop proposals for improving internal control norms and enhancing the effectiveness of judicial response to cases of administrative inactivity.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Theoretical and Legal Understanding of the Concepts of “Inactivity” and “Delay” in Administrative Law

In the administrative law of the Republic of Poland, the concepts of “inactivity” and “delay in proceedings” are key in the context of implementing the principle of timely administrative proceedings. Both phenomena indicate violations of proper administrative management but differ in their legal nature, procedural features, consequences, and approaches to legal response (Table 1). Despite their close interrelation, Polish legislation and administrative jurisdiction clearly distinguish these categories, primarily enshrined in the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland (1960), especially in its version following amendments in 2017.

Table 1: Distinction between the concepts of “inactivity” and “delay in proceedings”.

Source: compiled by the author on the basis of Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland.

Pursuant to Article 37 §1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, the legislator provides legal definitions for both concepts. Specifically, paragraph 1 states that inactivity occurs when an administrative authority has not resolved a matter within the timeframe prescribed by law or determined pursuant to Article 36 §1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland. Meanwhile, paragraph 2 of the same article qualifies excessive duration of proceedings as a situation where the proceedings last longer than objectively necessary to resolve the case, even if the formal deadlines have been met. This legal distinction aims to ensure compliance with fundamental principles of administrative procedure, including the principle of procedural speed (Article 12 Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland), trust in public administration (Article 8 Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland), and proportionality (Article 7a Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland). In legal terms, inactivity constitutes an actual passivity of the authority, characterised not only by the absence of an administrative decision but also by a lack of any actions aimed at issuing such a decision. This situation most commonly arises when deadlines set out in Article 35 Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland (30 days for straightforward cases and 60 days for complex ones) are breached, or when a justified extension under Article 36 Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland is not observed. The legal features of inactivity include: absence of an administrative decision or substantive actions towards its adoption; expiry of the prescribed deadlines; independence of the situations occurrence from the reasons for delay; and the presence of adverse effects on the individual, notably the infringement of the right to good governance.

Particular attention must be paid to clearly distinguishing the notions of “administrative authority inactivity” and “silent procedure”, which, despite their superficial similarity – namely, the absence of active steps by the authority for a certain period – have fundamentally different legal natures, objectives, and consequences. Inactivity constitutes a breach by the authority, which, despite a lawful obligation, has taken no or insufficient steps to resolve the case^[22]. The legislator does not attribute positive legal effect to this state of affairs – the absence of a decision does not produce further legal consequences for the party, other than grounds for filing a complaint. In contrast, the silent procedure is a positively defined mechanism for the resolution of administrative matters, introduced into the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland in 2017 as part of administrative reform and regulated by Chapter 2a of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland (Articles 122a-122h). Thus, the legal mechanism of the silent procedure operates only where a specific provision explicitly provides for the possibility of recognising a case as resolved without a formal decision. This means that in certain cases, the silence of the authority after the expiry of a defined deadline is treated as a legally significant fact – for example, consent, absence of objection, or approval of the parties’ actions. An example of such a special provision is Article 122e §1 Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, which provides that if a case is deemed resolved by silence, the administrative body shall, upon the parties’ request, issue an appropriate certificate confirming the legal effect of the silent procedure. Accordingly, any lack of action by an administrative authority that does not meet the criteria set for the silent procedure under Chapter 2a Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland should be classified as inactivity, which entails administrative liability for violation of deadlines and procedural guarantees for the parties.

Excessive duration of proceedings has a different nature. It does not consist of a complete absence of decisions or actions but rather of excessive length in carrying out procedural steps, inefficiency of administrative actions, or artificial prolongation of proceedings^[23]. Delay may manifest itself in long interruptions between actions, unjustified extensions of deadlines, repeated requests for evidence, conducting unnecessary expert assessments, or feigned formal acts without real progress^[24]. Unlike inactivity, where assessment is objective (the presence or absence of a decision within the deadline), determining delay requires consideration of a more complex set of factors: the complexity of the case, the character and frequency of the authorities’ actions, the effectiveness of each procedural step, and the conformity of the entire sequence of actions with the purpose of the proceedings. A comparison with the study by Cafaggi and Iamiceli^[25] confirms that the uncertainty accompanying administrative decision-making often causes excessive duration of proceedings, especially in cases with a complex regulatory character. However, Cafaggi and Iamiceli work places greater emphasis on the judicial perspective in assessing the actions of administrative bodies, whereas the present analysis focuses on the relationship between inactivity and delay as distinct legal categories, linked to the individual’s right to good governance. Nevertheless, the overall rationale concerning the justification of judicial intervention and the importance of respecting the principle of reasonable time is shared.

Both phenomena – inactivity and excessive delay in proceedings – constitute breaches of the individual’s right to proper administrative governance, which is guaranteed by both Polish law and European legal instruments. According to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, everyone has the right to have their case heard by an impartial body within a reasonable time. A similar provision is contained in Article 6 §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, extending also to administrative procedures, as recognised in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Within the Polish legal system, the mechanism for counteracting inactivity of administrative bodies is provided for in Article 37 §1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland. Where a public administrative authority fails to resolve a matter within the statutory deadlines (i.e., within the timeframes specified in Articles 35-36 Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland), the interested party is entitled to lodge a complaint with a superior authority or directly with the administrative court. The complaint may concern both inactivity (absence of any decision or action) and delay (poor organisation of work causing unnecessary delays even when the authority takes some actions)^[26].

In addition to the administrative complaint, the individual has the right to judicial protection under the provisions of the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, in particular Article 3 §2 point 8. This provision allows lodging a complaint to the administrative court precisely on grounds of inactivity or delay in administrative proceedings. If the court finds a violation, it may order the authority to take the appropriate actions within a specified deadline (Article 149). The results broadly correlate with findings presented in the scholarly work by Gavoor and Platt^[27], which emphasise judicial review as a key mechanism to counter administrative delay, while highlighting that inactivity and delay in proceedings pose a systemic threat to the individual’s right to a fair process. Similarly, to the conclusions reached in this study, the authors point to the necessity of clear definitions of “delay” and “failure to act” in judicial practice, enabling more effective application of legal remedies.

The research findings also align with the conclusions expressed by Żuk et al.^[28], who drew attention to the problems of efficiency in administrative proceedings and the distinctions between administrative and tax procedures. As in the aforementioned study, it is confirmed that procedural passivity of the authority, particularly in the form of inactivity, cannot be regarded as a method of exercising administrative competence, except where explicitly provided by law (the silent consent mechanism). Moreover, this study stresses the need to clearly separate inactivity from this legal instrument, which was only partially addressed in the cited publication. In cases where delay or inactivity causes harm or infringes non-material rights of the individual, the injured party has the right to claim compensation for excessive duration of proceedings, citing the Act on Complaints Regarding Violation of the Partys Right to Have a Case Heard by a Court Without Unjustified Delay. This mechanism also safeguards the individual’s right to effective proceedings in the context of administrative justice.

Thus, distinguishing between the concepts of “inactivity” and “delay” carries not only theoretical but also practical significance. It allows more effective protection of citizens rights, ensures the functionality of administrative proceedings, facilitates the establishment of proper mechanisms of public authority accountability, and strengthens public trust in governance. In turn, the legal system of the Republic of Poland demonstrates a high level of regulatory detail that contributes to the development of effective law enforcement in the field of administrative law.

3.2. Legislative Limits on Timeframes in Administrative Proceedings

One of the key aspects ensuring the effectiveness of administrative proceedings in the Republic of Poland is the legal regulation of timeframes for case consideration, as defined by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland. Time limits play a crucial role in guaranteeing the parties right to the timely resolution of administrative matters and serve as a mechanism to prevent inactivity on the part of public administration bodies. The legislator enshrined the fundamental principles of timeliness in the administrative process in Articles 35-37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, while simultaneously allowing flexibility in law enforcement in particular cases that require a special approach.

According to Article 35 §1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, a public administration authority is obliged to examine and resolve cases «without undue delay», reflecting the imperative nature of the principle of promptness. Furthermore, §3 of the same Article sets specific time limits: where a case does not require evidentiary proceedings, it must be resolved within one month; if such proceedings are necessary, within two months; and in appellate cases, no later than one month from receipt of the appeal. This approach demonstrates the legislators intention to provide clear regulation of time limits according to the complexity of the proceedings. However, the law does not exclude the possibility of objective obstacles to meeting these deadlines. Pursuant to Article 35 §5 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, the calculation of time limits excludes periods necessary for actions dependent on other entities or parties, as well as intervals during which delays are caused by reasons beyond the control of the administrative authority. This exception prevents the imposition of liability on the authority for breaches of time limits when it objectively could not complete the proceedings within the prescribed timeframe. In turn, Article 36 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland imposes a mandatory duty on the administrative authority unable to meet the time limit to inform the parties to the proceedings. Such notification must include the reasons for the delay and specify a new expected date for the conclusion of the case. This provision embodies the principles of transparency in administrative activity and ensures procedural guarantees for the parties^[29].

A significant guarantee mechanism is the institution of a complaint against inactivity or excessive delay in proceedings, established in Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland. A party has the right to lodge a complaint with a superior administrative authority if they consider that the case has not been examined within the prescribed period or that the proceedings are being conducted in violation of the principle of proper administrative procedure^[30]. Following the examination of such a complaint, the higher authority may oblige the subordinate body to take the necessary actions within a clearly defined timeframe or adopt other disciplinary measures against officials. It is important to note that the Code also provides for cases where the time limit for consideration may be shortened due to the public importance or vital nature of the issue. Although the Code does not include a direct list of such situations, the provisions of Articles 7 (principle of acting in the citizens interest) and 12 (principle of speed and efficiency of proceedings), taken together with administrative practice, allow for prioritising prompt response in matters concerning the fulfilment of fundamental needs – such as healthcare, life, social protection, education, and so forth. Such cases may be considered out of turn or at the initiative of the authority itself without waiting for the general time limit to expire.

The results of the research demonstrated that the timeliness of administrative proceedings in the legal system of the Republic of Poland constitutes one of the key guarantees of good governance, transparency of public administration, and protection of citizens rights. The analysis of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland revealed a structured model of time regulation, combining fixed time limits with mechanisms for their flexible adjustment, transparency concerning delays, and the establishment of the complaint institution against inactivity. These findings are corroborated by the conclusions of Krawczyk^[31], who, in a comparative legal analysis of administrative justice reforms in young democracies – including Poland – emphasised the importance of ensuring timeliness as an element of procedural fairness and trust in administrative justice. Simultaneously, empirical data on the practical effectiveness of time regulation complement the research of Kopacz^[32], who critically examined the limitations of existing evidentiary frameworks and highlighted the need for their revision to enhance the efficiency of administrative case resolution. The provision identified in this study regarding the exclusion of time periods dependent on the actions of parties or external circumstances from the calculation of deadlines correlates with M. Kopaczs arguments about the necessity of balancing timeliness with thoroughness in evidentiary processes. Thus, it is confirmed that the current Polish legislation already contains instruments aimed at eliminating unjustified delays without compromising the completeness of the evidentiary base.

Special attention should be paid to the digitalisation of the administrative process, which is actively being implemented in Poland. The Law of Poland No. 64 “On Computerisation of the Activities of Entities Performing Public Tasks”^[33] established the legal framework for the use of electronic means of communication in administrative proceedings. In particular, the electronic platform ePUAP enables parties to submit documents and receive decisions electronically, thereby reducing the time spent on procedural correspondence and accelerating administrative response. The use of electronic communication also affects the mechanisms for implementing time limits. For example, the date of electronic document submission is considered the date of its receipt by the administrative authority, ensuring accurate tracking of deadlines. Moreover, electronic delivery of documents helps avoid delays associated with traditional postal services and guarantees timely notification of the parties regarding the progress of proceedings. In this context, reference to actual statistical data demonstrating the scale of digital tool usage in Poland is appropriate (Table 2).

Table 2: The impact of digitalisation of the administrative process in Poland on compliance with case review deadlines, 2022-2024.

Source: compiled by the author on the basis of Kowarzyk, Jakubek-Lalik^[34].

Empirical data from 2022 to 2024 indicate a steady increase in the number of users of the electronic platform, as well as a growth in the proportion of cases submitted electronically, demonstrating positive progress in the digital adaptation of both citizens and administrative bodies. Concurrently, there is near-complete coverage of public authorities by the capability to receive electronic applications. This enables a reduction in time expenditures, diminishes the number of breaches of deadlines for case consideration, and generally improves the quality of administrative services. Thus, digital technologies are playing an increasingly important role in ensuring the timeliness of administrative proceedings, and digitisation is becoming not only a tool for modernising public administration but also an effective means of realising citizens’ rights within the sphere of public administration. This conclusion was not directly analysed in the works of Polish authors; however, it corresponds with the generalisations of Svoboda and Skládalová^[35], who, drawing on the Czech experience, highlighted the difficulties in classifying administrative actions amid procedural modernisation. Their warnings concerning the legal risks of automating administrative processes point to the necessity of careful regulation of deadlines and administrative accountability in the digital environment, aligning with trends identified in the study of Polish practice – active digitalisation alongside the preservation of clear temporal boundaries and institutional oversight. Overall, the studys findings confirm that the legislative model for regulating time limits in administrative proceedings in Poland, whilst demonstrating sufficient effectiveness and internal balance, remains in a phase of dynamic development – in the context of digital transformations, rising citizen expectations, and challenges related to the procedural balance between speed and fairness.

3.3. Judicial Practice and Administrative Means of Counteracting Inaction

One of the key instruments for combating the inaction of public administrative bodies and excessive duration of proceedings is the set of legal remedies provided under the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland. At the heart of the regulation are two interconnected mechanisms: the authorities’ duty to inform about delays in case consideration, enshrined in Article 36 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, and the right of the party to submit a reminder in cases of inaction or undue delay pursuant to Article 37 §1. These provisions aim not only to ensure the principle of timeliness in administrative proceedings (Article 12) but also to strengthen procedural fairness guarantees.

According to Article 36 §1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, the administrative body is obliged to notify the party of any instance of failure to resolve the case within the prescribed time limit, including an indication of the reasons for the delay, a new deadline for consideration, and information on the parties’ right to submit a reminder. Such notification is substantive rather than merely formal, as its purpose is to prevent the emergence of de facto inaction. As noted in the Resolution of the Provincial Administrative Court in Lodz No. III SAB/Łd 142/22, timely fulfilment of the obligation under Article 36 excludes the existence of inaction. The court emphasised that appropriate notification is considered to have been made for every obstacle in the proceedings, provided that the circumstances causing the delay were beyond the authorities’ control and that the newly set deadline was reasonable and proportionate. Doctrine and practice have established the position that notification of the new deadline should take the form of a non-appealable decision. This approach is based on Article 123 §1, which stipulates those authorities issue decisions within the proceedings, as well as Article 141 §1, which provides for the possibility to appeal only those procedural acts expressly indicated by the Code. Since the state of inaction is not itself a subject of appeal in this procedure, the right to respond to it is exercised through the submission of a reminder – pursuant to Article 37 §1.

This duty to inform applies irrespective of the cause of the delay: whether it results from the actions or inaction of the authority itself, or whether objectively there were circumstances beyond its control (Article 36 §2). Any exceeding of the deadline established by law or special provisions imposes on the administrative body the obligation to notify the party of a new date for consideration. The only exception was the temporary legal suspension of this obligation during the COVID-19 epidemic period, in accordance with Law of Poland No. 374 “On Special Solutions Related to the Prevention, Prevention and Combating of COVID-19, Other Infectious Diseases and Emergencies Caused by Them”. The reminder instrument introduced in the 2017 reform is the principal mechanism by which a party may challenge inaction or excessive duration of proceedings^[36]. Pursuant to Article 37 §1, a reminder is submitted when the authority fails to meet deadlines under Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland or special provisions, or when the proceedings clearly last excessively long. According to §3 of this article, the reminder is submitted through the authority conducting the proceedings to the higher-level authority, or, if none exists, directly to the authority itself. The party must justify its submission pursuant to §2, and the authority conducting the proceedings is obliged to forward the reminder no later than seven days after receipt (§4).

Provision is also made for submitting only part of the case materials in the form necessary for consideration of the reminder, including electronically, which facilitates acceleration of the procedure and prevents further delays. This approach was supported in the Resolution of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw No. VII SA/Wa 2064/23, where it was recognised that failure to provide full copies does not obstruct proper consideration of the reminder, provided the documents submitted are sufficient to reach a decision. Thus, the current wording of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland creates a coherent system of preventive and reactive mechanisms aimed at combating inaction and excessive duration of proceedings. Practice in applying these provisions confirms that the effectiveness of legal protection largely depends on proper notification of parties, adherence to deadlines, and active exercise by parties of the right to submit reminders as a means of procedural influence on administrative authorities.

In recent years, the case law, in particular in the Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court No. III OSK 204/22, clarifies the substantive distinction between the concepts of “inaction” and “excessive duration of proceedings”. The court indicated that inaction consists in failure to comply with the deadlines established by law or determined by the authority itself on the basis of Article 36 §1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. On the other hand, excessive duration is not necessarily associated with a violation of formal deadlines and occurs when the proceedings last excessively long given their nature, even in the absence of a formal delay. Such duration may manifest itself in ineffective or only apparent actions of the authority that do not contribute to the real progress of the case. Case law confirms that inaction and excessive duration are independent legal categories that cannot be identified: the first has a clearly measurable time criterion, the second is based on an assessment of the effectiveness and appropriateness of procedural actions. This position was also expressed in the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of February 14, 2017, which emphasized that both categories have their own legal nature and exist as separate institutions of procedural law.

The findings confirmed that judicial practice consistently regarded administrative inaction as a breach of the fundamental principle of due procedure. Obligations placed on the administration to comply with deadlines and properly inform parties of case progress are recognised as mandatory regardless of the reasons for delay, corresponding with the concepts formulated by Reshota^[37]. His research emphasised that European models of administrative justice function as a mechanism of real protection of individual rights, where judicial control over administrative inaction is recognised as a key tool for maintaining the legal balance between the state and the citizen.

The results also confirmed that the mechanism of submitting complaints, requests for expedited proceedings, and initiating judicial review concerning administrative inaction enables parties to effectively influence the administrative process. This aligns with conclusions presented by Chen et al.^[38], who demonstrated in their study that the constant possibility of judicial review of administrative activity exerts a preventive pressure on public authorities, encouraging them to improve the quality of managerial decisions. Furthermore, the study found that even the temporary suspension of the obligation to inform parties during the COVID-19 epidemic did not undermine the overall principle of legal predictability of administrative actions. This approach corresponds to theoretical positions outlined by Ilo^[39], who emphasised that administrative law has not only a regulatory but also a compensatory function, ensuring a balance between state interests and individual rights under extraordinary circumstances.

3.4. Problems in Law Enforcement and Ways to Improve

An analysis of judicial practice and administrative measures to counteract the inactivity of administrative bodies in Poland has revealed a number of systemic issues that undermine the effectiveness of protecting the rights of participants in administrative proceedings. One of the main challenges is the absence of real sanctions for breaches of time limits for case consideration, as stipulated in Articles 35 and 36 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland. Although these provisions impose an obligation to act “without delay,” in practice, authorities frequently exceed the prescribed deadlines without sufficient justification, merely providing formal notification to the parties in accordance with §1 and 2 of Article 36 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland^[40]. In light of this, it appears advisable to introduce a new provision to the Code – Article 36a – which would explicitly require the administrative body to provide a reasoned explanation for any delay and establish a mechanism for automatic notification of the officials liability in cases of repeated delays.

Another challenge lies in the formalism surrounding the institution of the “complaint regarding inactivity” provided for under Article 3 §2 point 8 of the Law of Poland No. 153 “On Proceedings before Administrative Courts”. Specifically, first-instance courts frequently dismiss such complaints if the administrative body manages to issue a decision before the case is heard, thereby negating the preventive function of this tool. To improve this mechanism, it is proposed to amend Article 149 of the Law of Poland No. 153 to include a provision whereby, even if a decision is made after the complaint is lodged, the court may issue a separate ruling recognising the fact of deadline violations. This would enable systematic abuses to be recorded. Attention should also be drawn to the insufficient effectiveness of the reminder tool concerning deadlines provided under Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland. As demonstrated by the judicial case Resolution of the Provincial Administrative Court in Lodz No. III SAB/Łd 142/22, even when multiple reminders are issued, effective measures by the superior authority are not always taken. This suggests that the procedure for handling reminders requires further regulation of the superior authorities’ obligations. It would be appropriate to supplement Article 37 §2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland with a provision making it mandatory to issue a written order or recommendation to the subordinate body in the event of a justified complaint. This would enhance the efficacy of internal administrative accountability.

From a practical standpoint, the lack of an information-analytical system for recording the duration of administrative cases is also striking. Comparative analysis with Germany, where the Elektronische Akte System operates, shows that implementing a similar tool would objectively monitor procedural deadlines, identify “bottlenecks,” and ensure transparency in administrative work. It is recommended to introduce an obligation to publish quarterly statistical data on the average duration of administrative proceedings, for example, through amendments to the Law of Poland No. 112 “On Access to Public Information”^[41], by adding point 7 to Article 6. Furthermore, in terms of fostering officials legal awareness, it is advisable to incorporate modules on administrative procedural ethics into staff training programmes. A positive example is the implementation of the training programme Ethos of the civil servant in the rule of law within the President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczyński National School of Public Administration, which, according to reports from 2022-2023, has significantly enhanced officials understanding of good governance standards. Overall, the proposed legislative and organisational changes aim to strengthen the legal safeguards provided by current Polish administrative law and to establish sustainable mechanisms of internal accountability and public transparency of administrative bodies.

The analysis of enforcement problems concerning compliance with deadlines in administrative proceedings and proposed improvement measures has established that systemic regulatory gaps and administrative inertia considerably reduce the effectiveness of individual rights guarantees. These conclusions align with the ideas expressed by Okeke and Amasiatu^[42], who regard administrative law as a potential domain of “organised irresponsibility,” especially in the context of institutions that formally acknowledge obligations but lack effective mechanisms to enforce compliance. A similar pattern has been observed within the Polish administrative procedure system, where Articles 35-36 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland declare deadlines but practical enforcement instruments remain largely declaratory. The findings also correlate with those of Seidman^[43], who, in his study of administrative court decisions in common law systems, showed that weak procedural accountability and the absence of clear standards of administrative responsibility led to de facto impunity for procedural violations. In the Polish context, this problem manifests in the lack of direct, personalised liability for officials in cases of repeated unjustified failure to meet deadlines. The proposed amendments to the Code, introducing a new article on disciplinary responsibility, resonate with Seidmans call for strengthening functional oversight in administrative justice.

Simultaneously, the rationale for proposed judicial practice corrections – particularly regarding the courts ability to recognise delays even after a decision has been made – aligns with the theoretical framework put forward by Chaudhry^[44]. Within the “traffic light theory” concept, the author emphasises the need to balance judicial restraint with active intervention in cases of administrative discretion abuse. The tendency towards excessive judicial restraint in Polish inactivity cases justifies the relevance of the suggested amendments to Article 149 of the Law of Poland No. 153 “On Proceedings before Administrative Courts”, which would equip courts with the means to acknowledge breaches regardless of the formal closure of proceedings by the administration. Consequently, the research results not only highlight current enforcement problems but also demonstrate a well-founded need for normative and practical reform of Polish administrative law in line with doctrinal principles of effective rights protection in administrative proceedings.

4. Conclusions

The study of the theoretical and legal nature of the concepts of “inaction” and “delay” in administrative law has demonstrated their distinction in terms of content, legal qualification, and consequences. The Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland contains effective means to counteract these phenomena – notably, the submission of complaints, the possibility of appealing to administrative courts, and compensation for damage caused by excessive duration of proceedings. The primary difference between inaction and delay lies in the nature of the administrative authorities’ behaviour: inaction denotes a complete lack of response or action within the prescribed time limit, whereas delay is associated with an undue duration of actions or procedures that are formally being carried out. The differentiation between these concepts is based on assessing the presence or absence of active measures by the authority within the procedural timeframe.

Legal regulation of deadlines in the Polish administrative process is based on a combination of clearly defined terms with the possibility of adapting them to the specific circumstances of a case. Important instruments include the obligation of authorities to inform about delays, the possibility to challenge inaction, and consideration of objective reasons for delay. At the same time, the digitalisation of the administrative process, particularly the introduction of the electronic platform ePUAP, has significantly accelerated the handling of applications and improved the accessibility of administrative services. The analysed case law confirms that administrative authorities are required to observe procedural deadlines and ensure proper notification of parties regarding the progress of proceedings. Breaches of these obligations, regardless of the reasons, are recognised by courts as administrative inaction, which may be subject to judicial review. The use of administrative complaints, requests for expedited proceedings, and judicial mechanisms – notably complaints concerning inaction – remain key tools for protecting the rights of the parties. The temporary suspension of these obligations during the COVID-19 epidemic was strictly limited by time and did not abolish the general principle of proper administrative procedure.

A synthesis of law enforcement issues revealed that the main factors undermining the effectiveness of deadline control are the normative ambiguity of liability for breaches under Articles 35-36 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, formalism in the application of complaints about inaction under Article 3 §2 point 8 of Law of Poland No. 153 “On Proceedings before Administrative Courts”, and the insufficient effectiveness of the reminder mechanism regulated by Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The following measures are proposed: To introduce a new Article 36a into the Code providing for direct disciplinary liability of officials for repeated breaches of deadlines; To supplement Article 149 of Law of Poland No. 153 with a provision enabling courts to establish breaches of deadlines even after the authorities’ decision has been issued; To clarify Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure by obliging the higher-level authority to issue binding orders following a substantiated reminder; To expand the Law of Poland No. 112 “On Access to Public Information” with a new obligation to regularly publish statistics on the duration of administrative cases; To institutionalise training modules on ethics and timeliness in proceedings within the civil service professional development system. The combined implementation of the proposed changes is expected to ensure real accountability of the administration, increase transparency of its activities, and strengthen guarantees of an individual’s right to timely and effective administrative proceedings.

The study had several limitations which should be taken into account when assessing its results. The analysis of case law focused predominantly on decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland, which does not cover the full range of positions represented in the practice of voivodeship administrative courts or decisions of first-instance administrative jurisdiction bodies. This may limit the comprehensiveness of the generalisations made regarding identified trends. Further research should focus on monitoring changes in the regulatory framework, particularly concerning digital tools in administrative proceedings, as well as on evaluating their impact on the efficiency and accessibility of administrative procedures.

1. D. Carelli, B. Peters, Autonomy by decree: How administrative law shapes bureaucratic autonomy in four administrative traditions, in Admin. & Socy, 56(5), 2024, pp. 683-703. ↑
2. P. Chvosta, The “Reform of the Century” of the Administrative Judiciary in Austria – A “New Era” also for the Administrative Jurisdiction in European Young Democracy States?, in Acta Univ. Lodz., Folia Iuridica, 98, 2022, pp. 37-54. ↑
3. H. Ruschemeier, L. Hondrich, Automation bias in public administration, in Gov. Info. Q., 42(3), 2024, p. 101953. ↑
4. I. Hoffman, Application of administrative law in the time of reforms in the light of the scope of judicial review in Hungary, in Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 29(3), 2020, pp. 101-116. ↑
5. A. Lienhard, P. Bieri, A. Malandrino, The role of constitutional and administrative law in the politics of public administration, in A. Ladner, F. Sager (eds.), Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2022, pp. 174-187. ↑
6. M. Michalak, P. Kledzik, How many instances in the Polish administrative procedure?, in Lex Localis, 18(4), 2020. ↑
7. A. Paduch, Polish administrative judiciary after 20 years of current law, in Int. J. Court Admin., 16(1), 2025, p. 7. ↑
8. A. Petoft, The concept and instances of general principles of administrative law, in Cuestiones Constitucionales, 42(1), 2020, pp. 309-355. ↑
9. M. Ponomarenko, Substance and procedure in local administrative law, in U. Pa. L. Rev., 170, 2022, pp. 1527-1587. ↑
10. K. Szpórnóg, Inaction of public administration bodies and protraction in administrative proceedings, 2024. ↑
11. J. Olszanowski, The model of supervision over administrative courts in Poland, in Bratislava Law Rev., 4(2), 2020, pp. 173-188. ↑
12. Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland, 1960. ↑
13. Law of Poland No. 179, 2004 (On a Complaint for Infringement of a Partys Right to Judicial Proceedings without Undue Delay). ↑
14. Law of Poland No. 153, 2002 (On Proceedings before Administrative Courts). ↑
15. Law of Poland No. 374, 2020 (On Special Solutions Related to the Prevention and Combating of COVID-19). ↑
16. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000. ↑
17. European Convention on Human Rights, 1950. ↑
18. Provincial Administrative Court in Lodz, Resolution No. III SAB/Łd 142/22, 2023. ↑
19. Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, Resolution No. VII SA/Wa 2064/23, 2023. ↑
20. Supreme Administrative Court, Resolution No. III OSK 204/22, 2024. ↑
21. A. Kowarzyk, Trusted Profile has 16 million users, 2024. ↑
22. C.K. Amandykova, D.B. Kalmaganbetova, Constitutional legal status of political parties in the Republic of Kazakhstan, in Soc. Sci. Pak., 11(16), 2016, pp. 3844-3852; L.I. Kizyun, Decentralization of the authority and compatible concepts, in Law. Hum. Envir., 10(1), 2019, pp. 28-34; ↑
23. D. Chaba, Public officials liability: A case study on Poland, in Int. Rev. Admin. Sci., 86(1), 2018, pp. 169-182; O. Mukhamediyarova, S. Moroz, S. Akimbekova, Current issues of agricultural land transfer in the republic of Kazakhstan, in Acta Sci. Pol. Admin. Loc., 24(1), 2025, pp. 115-127; O. Yara, O. Kravchuk, Grounds and conditions for securing a claim in administrative proceedings, in Law. Hum. Envir., 12(2), 2021, pp. 94-100. ↑
24. M. Fink, M. Finck, Reasoned A(I)dministration: Explanation requirements in EU law and the automation of public administration, in Eur. Law Rev., 47(3), 2022, pp. 376-392; O. Kubarieva, Judicial proceedings within a reasonable time: European experience and Ukrainian realities, in Law J. Nat. Acad. Int. Aff., 13(4), 2023, pp. 31-39. ↑
25. F. Cafaggi, P. Iamiceli, Uncertainty, administrative decision-making and judicial review: The courts perspectives, in Eur. J. Risk Regul., 12(4), 2021, pp. 792-824. ↑
26. W. Piątek, L. Potěšil, A right to have ones case heard within a reasonable time, in Utrecht Law Rev., 17(1), 2021, pp. 20-32; K. Orazaliev, A. Mukasheva, N. Ybyray, T. Nurekeshov, Current regulation of water relations in Central Asia, in Reg. Sci. Pol. Pract., 16(9), 2024, 100038; N. Apakhayev, A.B. Omarova, S. Kussainov, G.G. Nurahmetova, Y.A. Buribayev, Z.A. Khamzina, B. Kuandykov, S.V. Tlepina, N.S. Kala, Review on the outer space legislation: Problems and prospects, in Stat. Law Rev., 39(3), 2018, pp. 258-265. ↑
27. A.A. Gavoor, S.A. Platt, Agency delay and the courts, in Admin. L. Rev, 77, 2025, pp. 761 ff. ↑
28. K. Żuk, A. Koman-Bednarczyk, P. Pochodyła, L. Wojciechowski, Administrative proceedings vs. tax proceedings, in J. Mod. Sci., 57(3), 2024, pp. 182-198. ↑
29. A. Paduch, The Swedish and Polish models of administrative court proceedings, in Forum Prawnicze, 79(5), 2023, pp. 69-85; T.D. Stankova, D.S. Toneva, The gaps of renewable energy legislation in Bulgaria, in IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 1032(1), 2021, 012027; O. Oderiy, K. Orobets, O. Brynzanska, V. Veklych, V. Shpiliarevych, The Impact of EU Criminal Law Policy on the Prevention of Transnational Environmental Crime, in Pak. J. Crim., 16(3), 2024, pp. 1155-1172. ↑
30. A. Adamska-Gallant, Backsliding of the rule of law in Poland – A systemic problem with the independence of courts, in Int. J. Court Admin., 13(3), 2022, p. 2; V.V. Haltsova, O.O. Volodina, V.I. Hordieiev, I.V. Samoshchenko, K.M. Orobets, Analysis of criminal law on ecocide: A case study of war in Ukraine, in Rev. Kaw. Soc. Med. Amb., 2024(14), 2024, D-013; O. Narzullaeva, A. Mukasheva, D. Sadikova, Ensuring Legal Protection of Biological Diversity Regulations for Safeguarding Ecosystem, in J. Hum. Rights Cult. Leg. Syst., 5(2), 2025, pp. 531-553. ↑
31. A. Krawczyk, The administrative judiciary reforms in young democracy countries (comparative legal analysis), in Acta Univ. Lodz., Folia Iuridica, 98, 2022, pp. 5-19. ↑
32. M. Kopacz, About the need to change the scope of the evidence proceedings in administrative court cases, in Toruńskie Studia Polsko-Włoskie, 17, 2021, pp. 251-259. ↑
33. Law of Poland No. 64, 2005 (On Computerisation of the Activities of Entities Performing Public Tasks). ↑
34. J. Jakubek-Lalik, The challenges of AI in administrative law and the need for specific legal remedies: Analysis of Polish regulations and practice, in Cent. Eur. Public Admin. Rev., 22(2), 2024, pp. 109-128. ↑
35. T. Svoboda, D. Skládalová, The qualification of action in administrative justice, in Adam Mickiewicz Univ. Law Rev., 14, 2022, pp. 281-296. ↑
36. D. Ziółkowski, Importance of the principle of decent legislation for Polish administrative law, in Studia Iuridica, 102, 2024, pp. 242-256. ↑
37. V. Reshota, European models of administrative justice providing protection for rights and freedoms, in Visnyk Lviv Univ., Series Law, 79, 2024, pp. 153-159. ↑
38. T. Chen, Y. Sheng, W. Xu, X. Yu, Judicializing public interests: Administrative performance under the shadow of judicial review, in Am. Rev. Public Admin., 54(7), 2024, pp. 630-647. ↑
39. B. Ilo, Functions, theories and practice of administrative law in contemporary governance, in Admin. & Environ. Law Rev., 3(1), 2022, pp. 51-64. ↑
40. J.G. Firlus, Conflict of norms in Polish administrative law: Introductory remarks, in VII Int. Sci. & Pract. Conf. “Ukraine in the Conditions of Legal System Reform”, 2023, pp. 394-398. ↑
41. Law of Poland No. 112, 2001 (On Access to Public Information). ↑
42. R.C. Okeke, I. Amasiatu, Interrogating administrative law as organized lawlessness, in J. Public Admin. Finance Law, 28(1), 2023, pp. 328-334. ↑
43. G.I. Seidman, A hard look at common law administrative tribunals, in Onati Socio-Legal Series, 11(2), 2021, pp. 410-445. ↑
44. F.M. Chaudhry, Navigating the traffic light theories of administrative law: An examination of judicial deference and administrative discretion, 2024. ↑