Jurisdiction

Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958

Judgments of courts:

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 March 2018, II OSK 2425/17

  The fact of issuing travel documents cannot be regarded as the same as authorising a change of nationality, not only because it is the Council of State that should authorise the change of nationality, and not the authority that issued such documents, but above all because a permit to change nationality cannot be presumed per facta concludentia.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 19 March 2019, IV SA/Wa 3421/18

  Permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people, i.e. such a permit could be a resolution of the Council of State No. (...), provided that the applications of these persons were submitted to the Council of State before it was adopted. It could not cover persons who, until the date of its adoption, had not applied for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act was of the nature of a general consent granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 14 March 2018, IV SA/Wa 130/18

  Permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people, i.e. such a permit could be a resolution of the Council of State No. (...). However, it could not extend its scope to persons who, until the date of its adoption, had not applied for permission to change their nationality, because there are no grounds for assuming that such an act was of the nature of a general consent granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 8 September 2015, IV SA/Wa 1255/15

  First, the interested person should submit an application for permission to change Polish citizenship, then the application should be presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State, which then decided on the permit. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the statutory requirements on which the loss of Polish citizenship depends.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 17 January 2012, IV SA/Wa 1923/11

  Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could be assessed whether it is a decision on permission to change the Polish citizenship of a specific person only if it was established that the application for permission to change the citizenship of that person had been forwarded with an appropriate application to the Council of State and had been considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 July 2010, II OSK 1061/09

  On the basis of the jurisprudence of the courts on the issue of allowing the change of citizenship by way of a resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel to change their Polish citizenship, there were discrepancies.

  For these reasons, the decision of the Voivode stating that the applicant lost his Polish citizenship because he obtained permission to change his Polish citizenship and acquired foreign citizenship, although it may be assessed as issued in violation of the law as to the legal nature of the resolution of the Council of State authorising the change of citizenship, does not constitute a flagrant violation of Article 11(1) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 May 2010 II OSK 604/09

  Such an important issue as the loss of Polish citizenship cannot be determined solely on the basis of a factual presumption, i.e. on the fact that the application for permission to change citizenship was submitted before the adoption of the resolution. An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in the provision in question had been observed, i.e. who were covered by the application or motions of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19 May 2010 II OSK 690/09

  Since, in accordance with Article 13(2) of the Act, the decision of the Council of State on the loss of Polish citizenship was made at the request of the Prime Minister, the Court of First Instance correctly held that the mere initiation by the applicant's parents of the proceedings for the issuance of a permit to change citizenship, by submitting an appropriate application in this respect, is not sufficient to categorically state that the effects of Resolution No. 5/58 should also be applied to the applicant. That view must be upheld, since an issue as important as the loss of Polish citizenship cannot be determined solely on the basis of the factual presumption that Resolution No 5/58 of the Council of State produced legal effects in respect of the applicant and her parents, since their applications for permission to change their nationality were submitted before that resolution was adopted.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19 May 2010 II OSK 487/09

  An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in the provision in question was followed, i.e. who were covered by the application or applications of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19 May 2010 II OSK 486/09

  The fact that the text of the resolution itself does not mention the names of these persons does not mean that the resolution in this respect is not of an individual and specific nature, if it turns out that the group of such persons was unambiguously defined by the motion(s) of the Prime Minister in question, in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. However, it cannot be assumed in advance that the resolution (...) constituted a ruling of the Council of State on permission to change Polish citizenship for any person who, before the adoption of the resolution, applied for permission to change Polish citizenship, due to the fact that after 50 years only fragmentary archival materials have been preserved. Nor can the view expressed in the cassation appeal and the judgment of 27 June 2008 cited therein that the permission to change citizenship be granted in the form of a general act be shared.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 7 May 2010 II OSK 444/09

  The act of issuing a travel document cannot be equated with a permit to change citizenship, because it is the Council of State that should authorize the change of citizenship, not the authority that issued such documents. Above all, permission to change citizenship cannot be presumed per facta concludentia. The requirement to meet statutory formal standards cannot be derived from awareness of the legal consequences of receiving a travel document and leaving Polish.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 May 2010 II OSK 395/09

  The authorities' choice of one of the different interpretations of Article 13(1) of the Polish Citizenship Act cannot be considered a gross violation of the law within the meaning of Article 156(1)(2) of the APC.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 1 April 2010, II OSK 334/09

  An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act had been observed, i.e. who were covered by the application or applications of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 1 April 2010 II OSK 336/09

  An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act had been observed, i.e. who were covered by the application or applications of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 1 April 2010 II OSK 380/09

  Permission to change Polish citizenship as a prerequisite for the loss of Polish citizenship was an individual act of the Council of State addressed to a specific addressee.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 30 March 2010 II OSK 333/09

  An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act had been observed, i.e. who had been covered by the application or requests of the Prime Minister. The mere fact that a person has submitted an application for permission to change citizenship cannot be presumed that the application was actually covered by the request of the Prime Minister and presented to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 30 March 2010, II OSK 332/09

  An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act had been observed, i.e. who had been covered by the application or requests of the Prime Minister. The mere fact that a person has submitted an application for permission to change citizenship cannot be presumed that the application was actually covered by the request of the Prime Minister and presented to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 18 March 2010 II OSK 250/09

  An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act had been observed, i.e. who were covered by the application or applications of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 February 2010 II OSK 304/09

  An effective permit to change citizenship could only be obtained by persons with respect to whom the appropriate procedure provided for in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act had been observed, i.e. who had been covered by the application or requests of the Prime Minister. The mere fact that a person has submitted an application for permission to change citizenship cannot be presumed that the application was actually covered by the request of the Prime Minister and presented to the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 January 2010 II OSK 111/09

  The use of the terms "adjudicates", "ruling" and that the ruling is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and that the announcement of the ruling in the Monitor Polski replaces service, clearly indicates that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 treated the permission to change citizenship as an act of applying the law, understood in such a way that the body specified in the statute (the Council of State), with reference to the legal basis specified in the statute, adjudicates on specific persons to allow these persons to change their Polish citizenship. However, the statutory regulation understood in this way did not indicate in what form and in what mode of proceedings a case for permission to change citizenship was handled by the Council of State. There is no doubt that this is not a case resolved by way of an administrative decision in proceedings regulated by the provisions of the Regulation of the President of the Republic of Poland of 22 March 1928 on administrative proceedings (Journal of Laws of 1928, No. 36, item 341, as amended), and later the Code of Administrative Procedure. This means that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 independently determined the procedure for issuing decisions by the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 January 2010 II OSK 110/09

  The use of the terms "adjudicates", "ruling" and that the ruling is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and that the announcement of the ruling in the Monitor Polski replaces service, clearly indicates that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 treated the permission to change citizenship as an act of applying the law, understood in such a way that the body specified in the statute (the Council of State), with reference to the legal basis specified in the statute, adjudicates on specific persons to allow these persons to change their Polish citizenship. However, the statutory regulation understood in this way did not indicate in what form and in what mode of proceedings a case for permission to change citizenship was handled by the Council of State. There is no doubt that this is not a case resolved by way of an administrative decision in proceedings regulated by the provisions of the Regulation of the President of the Republic of Poland of 22 March 1928 on administrative proceedings (Journal of Laws of 1928, No. 36, item 341, as amended), and later the Code of Administrative Procedure. This means that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 independently determined the procedure for issuing decisions by the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15 January 2010 II OSK 60/09

  The fact of issuing a travel document cannot be regarded as the same as authorising a change of nationality, not only because it is the Council of State that should authorise the change of nationality, and not the authority that issued such documents, but, above all, that a permit to change nationality cannot be presumed per facta concludentia. The requirement to meet statutory formal standards cannot be relativized or derived from awareness of the legal consequences of receiving a travel document and leaving Polish. Awareness of the legal consequences of an action in public law is irrelevant. It is only important to meet the statutory requirements provided for in the Polish Citizenship Act.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15 January 2010, II OSK 55/09

  The mere fact that a person submitted an application for permission to change citizenship cannot be presumed that the application was actually covered by the request of the Prime Minister and presented to the Council of State before the adoption of Resolution No. 5/58.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 December 2009 II OSK 1924/08

  The mere fact that a person submitted an application for permission to change citizenship cannot be presumed that the application was actually covered by the request of the Prime Minister and presented to the Council of State before the adoption of Resolution No. 5/58. Such an important issue as the loss of Polish citizenship cannot be determined solely on the basis of the factual presumption that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State had legal effect in relation to the applicant, since her application for permission to change her nationality was submitted before the adoption of that resolution

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 December 2009 II OSK 61/09

  The legal dispute in this case concerns the criterion for determining the group of individually designated persons to whom the Council of State effectively granted permission to change citizenship by a resolution of 23 January 1958. There is no doubt that these could only be persons who submitted an appropriate application to this body with a request for the permit in question before the Council of State adopted the resolution in question

• Sentence
  of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 December 2009, II OSK 1731/08

  The procedure set out in Article 11 of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 was an individual proceeding in a specific case. The interpretation of this provision indicates the individual nature of the permit, referring to the person who applied for such a permit. The party's statement alone was not a sufficient prerequisite for the loss of citizenship. The consent (permit) of the competent authority was necessary, which in such an important case should be individual and relate to a specific person. The issuance of a travel document cannot be equated with a permit to change citizenship, as it is the Council of State that should authorise the change of citizenship, not the authority that issued such documents. Above all, permission to change citizenship cannot be presumed per facta concludentia. The requirement to meet statutory formal standards cannot be derived from awareness of the legal consequences of receiving a travel document and leaving Polish.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 September 2009, II OSK 1732/08

  It is erroneous to take the position that the mere fact that the applicant submitted an application for permission to change citizenship before the issuance of Resolution No. 5/58 by the Council of State should be presumed that the permission was granted to him by this authority.  the fact of issuing a travel document cannot be regarded as the same as authorising a change of nationality, not only because it is the Council of State that must authorise the change of nationality and not the authority which issued such documents, but, above all, that a permit to change nationality cannot be presumed per facta concludentia.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19 June 2009 II OSK 959/08

  In some of the rulings of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw and in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the opposite view was presented that permission to change Polish citizenship should be issued by the Council of State by way of an individual act (judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 September 2001, III RN 56/01, OSNAPiUS 2002, No. 13, item 299), which - under certain conditions - could be Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 (see judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005,  II OSK 965/05, ONSAiWSA 2006, No. 2, item 67). In the present case, the authorities of both instances, when issuing the decisions to which the application for annulment relates, shared the first of the above-mentioned views and held that the decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship referred to in Article 13(1) of the Act could have been an act of a general nature, thus assuming that the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 constituted a general permission to change citizenship granted to persons who which submitted applications in this regard before taking the decision.

• Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 February 2009 II OSK 144/08

  The provisions of the 1951 Polish Citizenship Act do not provide for a legal presumption that the mere submission of an application for a change of citizenship by a person who planned to move permanently to Israel meant that the application was presented to the Council of State before the adoption of Resolution No. 5/58. Nor can the determination of these circumstances be based on a factual presumption. The mere fact that the application was submitted or that the applicant's parents received travel documents does not presume that their applications were actually covered by the request of the Prime Minister and presented to the Council of State before the adoption of Resolution No. 5/58. The Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly stated that the fact of issuing a travel document cannot be regarded as the same as a permit to change one's citizenship, not only because it is the Council of State that should authorise the change of citizenship, and not the authority that issued such documents, but above all that a permit to change one's nationality cannot be presumed per facta concludentia

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 January 2009, II OSK 56/08

  The assumption that the resolution of the Council of State constituted a general authorisation in terms of subjects to exchange Polish citizenship for Israeli citizenship in relation to persons who submitted applications for permission to change their citizenship in 1957, and therefore before the adoption of Resolution No. 5/58 by the Council of State, does not constitute a flagrant violation of the law.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 January 2009 II OSK 57/08

  The assumption that the resolution of the Council of State constituted a general authorisation in terms of subjects to exchange Polish citizenship for Israeli citizenship in relation to persons who submitted applications for permission to change their citizenship in 1957, and therefore before the adoption of Resolution No. 5/58 by the Council of State, does not constitute a flagrant violation of the law.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 November 2008 II OSK 1440/07

  Permission to change citizenship could not be granted in the form of a general act. Although the Act did not specify specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State in these cases, it should be assumed that the decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the process of being considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution does not mention these persons does not mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 25 September 2008 IV SA/Wa 1113/08

  Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could only apply to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 25 September 2008 IV SA/Wa 1113/08

  Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could only apply to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 24 September 2008, IV SA/Wa 1165/08

  Since it was not possible to find a document confirming that the applicant had obtained the appropriate permission from the Council of State to change her Polish citizenship, in accordance with the general principle of taking into account the public interest and the legitimate interest of citizens, set out in Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the authority has no grounds to refuse to confirm her Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 18 September 2008, IV SA/Wa 1019/08

  In such a legally important case as the loss of Polish citizenship, it is impossible to confine ourselves to the presumption that the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 also had legal effects with respect to the applicant, since her parents submitted an application to that effect. The mere fact that the applicant's parents initiated proceedings for permission to change her nationality by submitting an application to that effect is not sufficient to categorically conclude that the effects of the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 should also be applied to the applicant's parents and, consequently, to the applicant herself.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 17 September 2008, IV SA/Wa 1186/08

  If there is no evidence confirming the fact that the applications of the applicant's parents for permission to change his nationality were submitted to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, it cannot be assumed that that resolution constituted permission for the applicant's parents to change their Polish citizenship, and thus also for the applicant himself.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 September 2008, IV SA/Wa 875/08

  In the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court, as well as in the doctrine, there is a uniform position that the decision of the Council of State (Resolution No. 5/58) on the issue of permission to change Polish citizenship was not made in the form of an administrative decision within the meaning of the provisions of the Regulation on Administrative Proceedings of 22 March 1928 (Journal of Laws of 1928 No. 36, item 341, as amended. or the provisions of the Act of 14 June 1960 on the Code of Administrative Procedure (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2000, No. 98, item 1071, as amended), hereinafter referred to as the "Code of Administrative Procedure". The Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship independently determined the procedure for issuing decisions by the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship. At the same time, the view that the permit in question is an act of applying the law is established. On the other hand, as regards the form of the permit, there are two opposing positions: one indicating that it should be individual, individual, referring to a specific person (so the Supreme Court in the judgment of 17 September 2001, III RN 56/01; the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05; J. Jagielski, "Obywatelstwo polskie" Warsaw 1998, p. 123), while the second, accepting the above principle, allows for the possibility of granting a general permission to change citizenship - when the change of citizenship concerns a larger number of people - indicating that at that time the permission to change citizenship had a legal effect against a designated person and only in relation to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change of citizenship (cf. W. Ramus, "Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship", Warsaw 1980, p. 248)

• Sentence of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw
  of 11 September 2008
  IV SA/Wa 560/08

  The ruling should be made in the form of a resolution, because the Council of State, as a collegial body, could not issue other decisions, especially since the provisions on administrative procedure were not applied in its activities, the adjudicating court took the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people. However, the court came to the conclusion, following the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, ref. no. II OSK 965/05, of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 983/05 and of 14 October 2005, file no. II OSK 267/05, that a resolution of this type could only constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who, until the date of its adoption, applied for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general consent granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 5 September 2008, IV SA/Wa 1018/08

  First, the interested person should submit an application for a permit to change Polish citizenship, then the application should be presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State, and then this authority should decide on the permit. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the statutory requirements on which the loss of Polish citizenship depends. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could only apply to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution. Therefore, the resolution of the Council of State could not have an impact "on the future". The above position is represented by the Supreme Administrative Court in the judgments of 27 October 2005, II OSK 983/05, 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05 and of 21 December 2006, II OSK 1455/05, as well as by the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw: cf. judgments of 12 August 2008, IV SA/Wa 815/08, of 25 May 2007, IV SA/Wa 589/07.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 4 September 2008 II OSK 1004/07

  Permission to change nationality is an act of applying the law to a case involving a specific person.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 27 August 2008, IV SA/Wa 998/08

  The Supreme Administrative Court expressed its opinion on the significance of the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 for individual proceedings in its judgment of 27 October 2005 (II OSK 965/05, publ. ONSA and WSA 2006/2/66), adopting the view that "it cannot be assumed a priori that the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel (unpubl.) does not constitute a decision of the Council of State, issued on the basis of Article 13(1) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25), on permission to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who submitted a request for permission to change citizenship before the adoption of the resolution". In the justification for this judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the resolution could legally effectively constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship, because it follows from its content that it refers directly to persons who applied for permission to change Polish citizenship and left Poland, going to Israel for permanent residence, although it is not of an individual and specific nature, as it does not mention the names of these persons. The group of such persons should be determined by the request of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. In order to assess whether the resolution constituted such a permit, it is only important to determine whether the Prime Minister's application mentions the names of the persons who submitted the permit to change Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 26 August 2008 IV SA/Wa 1017/08

  Both in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court, as well as in the doctrine, there is a uniform position that the decision of the Council of State on the issue of permission to change Polish citizenship was not made in the form of an administrative decision within the meaning of the provisions of the Regulation on Administrative Procedure of 22 March 1928 (Journal of Laws of 1928, No. 36, item 341, as amended. The Polish Citizenship Act independently determined the procedure for issuing decisions by the Council of State on permission to change citizenship. At the same time, the view that the permit in question is an act of applying the law is established. On the other hand, as regards the form of the permit, there are two opposing positions: one indicating that it should be individual, individual, referring to a specific person (so the Supreme Court in the judgment of 17 September 2001, III RN 56/01, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05, J. Jagielski, "Obywatelstwo polskie" Warsaw 1998, p. 123), while the second, accepting the above principle, allows for the possibility of granting a general permission to change citizenship - when the change of citizenship concerns a larger number of people - indicating that at that time the permission to change citizenship had a legal effect against a designated person and only in relation to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change of citizenship (cf. W. Ramus, "Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship", Warsaw 1980, p. 248)

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 August 2008 II OSK 925/07

  The Polish Citizenship Act of 8 January 1951 provided for the possibility of losing Polish citizenship as a result of acquiring foreign citizenship only after obtaining permission from the Polish authorities to change citizenship (Article 11). The Council of State was responsible for adjudicating on the loss of citizenship, including permission to change citizenship in connection with the acquisition of foreign citizenship. Pursuant to Article 13(1), (2) and (3) of the said Act, the loss of Polish citizenship was decided by the Council of State, the decision on the loss of Polish citizenship was made at the request of the Prime Minister, and the announcement of such a ruling in the Monitor Polski replaced the service of the ruling. It follows from these provisions that adjudication on a permit to change Polish citizenship, with the effect of losing Polish citizenship upon acquisition of foreign citizenship, referred to a specific person – a Polish citizen who applied for a permit to change citizenship. The use of the terms "adjudicates", "ruling" and that the ruling is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and that the announcement of the ruling in the Monitor Polski replaces service, clearly indicates that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 treated the permission to change citizenship as an act of applying the law, understood in such a way that the body specified in the statute (the Council of State), with reference to the legal basis specified in the statute, adjudicates on specific persons to allow these persons to change their Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 19 August 2008, IV SA/Wa 923/08

  The issue of the significance of the Council of State's Resolution No. 5/58 for individual proceedings was addressed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 October 2005 (II OSK 965/05, publ. ONSA and WSA 2006/2/66), adopting the view that "it cannot be assumed a priori that the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel (unpubl.) does not constitute a decision of the Council of State, issued on the basis of Article 13(1) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25), on permission to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who submitted a request for permission to change citizenship before the adoption of the resolution". In the justification for this judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the resolution could legally effectively constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship, because it follows from its content that it refers directly to persons who applied for permission to change Polish citizenship and left Poland, going to Israel for permanent residence, although it is not of an individual and specific nature, as it does not mention the names of these persons. The group of such persons should be determined by the request of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. In order to assess whether the resolution constituted such a permit, it is only important to determine whether the Prime Minister's application mentions the names of the persons who submitted the permit to change Polish citizenship. The above view of the Supreme Administrative Court is reflected in numerous subsequent judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, e.g. the judgment of 28 February 2007 ref. no. II OSK 510/06

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 10 July 2008 II OSK 791/07

  The Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 independently determined the procedure for issuing decisions by the Council of State on permission to change citizenship. The Polish Citizenship Act of 8 January 1951 did not contain a provision authorising the Council of State to issue an executive normative act. In the system of sources of law of the People's Republic of Poland, it was assumed that in the areas covered by the exclusivity of the Act and in the statutorily regulated sphere, the Council of State may adopt resolutions of a normative nature as normative acts of an executive nature only on the basis of a statutory authorisation. Therefore, independent resolutions of the Council of State could not be adopted in these areas.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 2 July 2008 IV SA/Wa 752/08

  Changing citizenship is a matter of public law. With regard to actions taken in the field of public law, no procedures are made that correspond to the interpretation of declarations of will in accordance with the rules applicable in private law, and in particular in accordance with the principles resulting from the provisions of the Civil Code. It did not matter why they wanted to change their citizenship and the application for permission to change their citizenship only triggered the procedure related to such a change. In public law, the intention of the interested party, his or her will not be directly disclosed in the application addressed to the state authorities, are devoid of legal significance and the interpretation of declarations of will according to the criteria set out in the Civil Code (Article 60, Article 61 and Article 65 of the Civil Code) is not applied.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 1 July 2008 IV SA/Wa 751/08

  If there is no evidence confirming the fact that the application was submitted to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, it cannot be assumed that the resolution constituted a permit to change Polish citizenship. Therefore, it should have been concluded that the prerequisite under Article 11 of the 1951 Act on Polish Citizenship had not been met.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 30 June 2008, IV SA/Wa 848/08

  The Act does not regulate the form of issuing permits, so it could also be issued in the form of a resolution of the Council of State. A permit from the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to multiple entities if those persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution

• Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 June 2008 II OSK 714/07

  The Polish Citizenship Act of 8 January 1951 provided for the possibility of losing Polish citizenship as a result of acquiring foreign citizenship only after obtaining permission from the Polish authorities to change citizenship (Article 11). The Council of State was responsible for adjudicating on the loss of citizenship, including permission to change citizenship in connection with the acquisition of foreign citizenship. Pursuant to Article 13(1), (2) and (3) of the said Act, the Council of State decides on the loss of Polish citizenship, the decision on the loss of Polish citizenship was made at the request of the Prime Minister, and the publication of such a decision in the Monitor Polski replaced the service of the decision. It follows from these provisions that adjudication on a permit to change Polish citizenship, with the effect of losing Polish citizenship upon acquisition of foreign citizenship, referred to a specific person – a Polish citizen who applied for a permit to change citizenship. The use of the terms "adjudicates", "ruling" and that the ruling is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and that the announcement of the ruling in the Monitor Polski replaces service, clearly indicates that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 treated the permission to change citizenship as an act of applying the law, understood in such a way that the body specified in the statute (the Council of State), with reference to the legal basis specified in the statute, adjudicates on specific persons to allow these persons to change their Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 June 2008 II OSK 661/07

  Pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship, a Polish citizen could acquire foreign citizenship only after obtaining permission from the Polish authorities to change their citizenship. On the other hand, pursuant to Article 11(5) of the said Act, the acquisition of foreign citizenship in accordance with paragraphs 1-4 entailed the loss of Polish citizenship. The competent authority to adjudicate on the loss of Polish citizenship was the Council of State (Article 13(1) of the Act), which acted in this respect at the request of the Prime Minister (Article 13(2) of the Act). Detailed rules and procedures for adjudication by the Council of State in cases of permission to change citizenship have never been regulated in any normative act. In the legal order in force at that time, there were also no grounds for the Council of State to issue such a normative act of an executive nature. In the system of sources of law of the People's Republic of Poland, it was assumed that in the areas covered by the exclusivity of a statute and in the sphere regulated by statute, the Council of State may adopt resolutions of a normative nature, as normative acts of an executive nature, only on the basis of a statutory authorisation.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 18 June 2008, IV SA/Wa 649/08

  A permit from the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to multiple entities if those persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications on the date of adoption of the resolution.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 17 June 2008, IV SA/Wa 750/08

  The possible loss of Polish citizenship should be assessed in the light of the regulations in force at the time of the occurrence of the event causing or likely to cause the loss of this citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 4 June 2008, IV SA/Wa 635/08

  If there is no evidence confirming the fact that the citizen's application was submitted to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, it cannot be assumed that the resolution constituted a permit to change Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 3 June 2008, IV SA/Wa 565/08

  The 1951 Polish Citizenship Act did not indicate the form in which permits for the change of citizenship should be granted by the Council of State and very generally indicated the appropriate procedure in this respect. Despite such a rudimentary regulation, the provisions of the Regulation of the President of the Republic of Poland of 1928 on administrative proceedings (Journal of Laws of 1928, No. 36, item 341, as amended) concerning the issuance of an administrative decision, as well as the provisions of the later Code of Administrative Procedure, did not apply to it.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 28 May 2008, IV SA/Wa 636/08

  First, the interested person should submit an application for permission to change Polish citizenship, then the application should be presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State, and then the Council of State should decide on the permit. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the statutory requirements on which the loss of Polish citizenship depends. A permit from the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to multiple entities if those persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 May 2008 II OSK 471/07

  The decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the process of being considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution does not mention these persons does not mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 14 May 2008 IV SA/Wa 513/08

  The adjudicating court took the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people. However, the court came to the conclusion, following the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, ref. no. II OSK 965/05, of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 983/05 and of 14 October 2005, file no. II OSK 267/05, that a resolution of this type could only constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who, until the date of its adoption, applied for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general consent granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 6 May 2008 IV SA/Wa 426/08

  The court adjudicating in the present case shares the view of the Supreme Administrative Court on the individualized nature of the act permitting the change of citizenship, which requires determining whether the applications of the applicant's parents for permission to change citizenship were the subject of the Prime Minister's application for the issuance of Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958. In such a legally important case as the loss of Polish citizenship, it is impossible to stop at the presumption that the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 also had legal effects with respect to the applicant, since her parents submitted appropriate applications in this regard and received travel documents for departure from Polish to Israel. The mere fact that the applicant's parents initiated proceedings for permission to change her nationality by submitting appropriate applications in this respect and issuing travel documents is not, in the Court's view, sufficient to categorically state that the effects of the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 should also be applied to the applicant's parents and, consequently, to the applicant herself.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 30 April 2008 IV SA/Wa 383/08

  Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted an application for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution - because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general rule granted for the future. The above position is represented by the Supreme Administrative Court m.in. in the judgments of 27 October 2005 II OSK 989/05 and of 14 October 2005 II OSK 267/06

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 April 2008 II OSK 168/07

  The fact that the resolution of the Council of State of 1958 did not indicate the names of the persons concerned does not mean that the resolution could not have been an individual act. With respect to persons who submitted applications to the Council of State for permission to change their Polish citizenship before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, the resolution could be an individual permit, provided, however, that the group of such persons was unambiguously defined by the application(s) of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 April 2008 II OSK 176/07
  1. There is no doubt that a case for permission to change citizenship is not a matter resolved by way of an administrative decision in proceedings governed by the provisions of the Regulation of the President of the Republic of Poland of 22 March 1928 on administrative proceedings (Journal of Laws of 1928 No. 36, item 341, as amended), and later the Code of Administrative Procedure.
  2. If the view that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could not constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who had not applied for permission to change citizenship until the date of its adoption should be fully shared, because it is impossible to speak of granting permission to a person who did not apply for such a permit, such a position cannot be directly applied to a situation where an application to the Council of State for permission to change Polish citizenship was submitted in 1957.
  3. However, the view that permission to change citizenship may be granted in the form of a general act cannot be shared. Although the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 did not specify any specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State in these cases, in the light of the existing case-law, it should be assumed that a decision of the Council of State on permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the process of being considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution does not mention these persons does not mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.
• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 25 April 2008, IV SA/Wa 411/08
  1. It follows from the wording of Articles 13 and 11 of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25, as amended) that the person concerned must first submit an application for permission to change Polish citizenship, then the application must be presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State, and then the Council of State shall decide on the permit. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the statutory requirements on which the loss of Polish citizenship depends.
  2. If there is no evidence confirming the fact that the motions of the applicant's parents were forwarded to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 26 June 1957, it cannot be assumed that the resolution constituted permission for the applicant's parents to change their Polish citizenship also and, therefore, for the applicant himself.
• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 April 2008, IV SA/Wa 410/08

  The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the resolution could legally effectively constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship, because it follows from its wording that it refers directly to persons who applied for permission to change their Polish citizenship and left Poland, going to Israel for permanent residence, although it is not of an individual and specific nature, as it does not mention the names of these persons. The group of such persons should be determined by the application(s) of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. In order to assess whether the resolution constituted such a permit, it is only important to determine whether the Prime Minister's application mentions the names of the persons who submitted the permit to change Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 22 April 2008, IV SA/Wa 336/08

  Changing citizenship is a matter of public law. With regard to actions taken by a party in the field of public law, no procedures are made that correspond to the interpretation of declarations of will in accordance with the rules applicable in private law, and in particular in accordance with the principles resulting from the provisions of the Civil Code.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 17 April 2008, case no. IV SA/Wa 358/08

  With regard to persons who, like the applicants' parents, submitted applications to the Council of State for permission to change their Polish citizenship before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, that resolution could have the character of an individual permit, provided, however, that the group of such persons was unambiguously defined by the application(s) of the Prime Minister referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. whether the applications of the persons to whom the permits to change their citizenship concerned were covered by the application of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, or finally the applications of these persons were covered by the resolution in the part permitting the change of Polish citizenship to persons who applied for such a permit and left Poland and subsequently obtained Israeli citizenship. In the present case, the Minister of the Interior and Administration established only that the applicant had applied to the Council of State for exemption from changing his citizenship before the adoption of the resolution in question, and then left Poland, after which the applicant obtained Israeli citizenship in 1956. In the light of the foregoing considerations, those findings must be regarded as insufficient to conclude that the applicant's condition of being granted an individual permit to change his nationality was met in the present case

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 16 April 2008, IV SA/Wa 367/08

  Permission to change citizenship is not a normative executive act to an act of statutory rank, because the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 did not contain a provision authorizing the Council of State to issue an act of this nature. It is, however, an act of applying the law.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 15 April 2008, IV SA/Wa 329/08

  The court adjudicating in the present case shares the view of the Supreme Administrative Court on the individualized nature of the act permitting the change of citizenship, which requires determining whether the application of the applicant's parents for permission to change citizenship was the subject of the Prime Minister's application for the issuance of Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958. In such a legally significant case as the loss of Polish citizenship, it is impossible to stop at the presumption that the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 also had legal effects with respect to the applicant, since his parents submitted an appropriate application in this regard and received travel documents for departure from Polish to Israel. The mere fact that the applicant's parents initiated proceedings for permission to change their nationality by submitting an application to that effect and issuing travel documents is not, in the Court's view, sufficient to categorically state that the effects of the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 should also be applied to the applicant's parents and, thus, to the applicant himself

• Judgments of 1 April 2008, Supreme Administrative Court (ref. no. II OSK 361/07)

  Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on the permission to change the Polish citizenship of persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel could not constitute a permit to change the Polish citizenship in relation to persons who had not applied for permission to change their citizenship until the date of its adoption, because it is impossible to speak of granting the permit to a person, which did not apply for such a permit.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw
  of 1 April 2008 IV SA/Wa 2418/07

  The resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could not constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who had not applied for permission to change citizenship until the date of its adoption, because it is impossible to speak of granting permission to a person who did not apply for such a permit.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 17 March 2008

  the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could have legal effects on persons who had left the territory of Poland and acquired Israeli citizenship before the date of adoption of the resolution, but the group of persons covered by the resolution had to be unambiguously defined by the request (or motions) of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State on the basis of Article 13(2) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, because granting consent to change citizenship is individualized, even if the act containing such consent, such as the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958, does not mention the names of the persons to whom the consent concerned (cf. the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 January 2008, file ref. II OSK 1890/06). The Supreme Administrative Court concludes that the condition for issuing an individual permit to change citizenship is met if the application of the Prime Minister, submitted to the Council of State, also included the application of persons applying for such a permit. of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 14 March 2008, IV SA/Wa 146/08

  Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted an application for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution - because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general rule granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 6 March 2008, IV SA/Wa 2575/07

  Although the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 in question could have legal effects only with respect to persons who had left the territory of Poland and acquired Israeli citizenship before the date of adoption of the resolution, the group of persons covered by the resolution had to be unambiguously defined by the motion (or motions) of the Prime Minister submitted to the Council of State on the basis of Article 13(2) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, because granting consent to change citizenship is individualized, even if the act containing such consent, such as the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958, does not mention the names of the persons to whom the consent concerned (cf. the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 January 2008, file ref. II OSK 1890/06). The Supreme Administrative Court concludes that the condition for issuing an individual permit to change citizenship is met if the application of the Prime Minister, submitted to the Council of State, also included the application of persons applying for such a permit

• Sentence
  of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw
  of 4 March 2008
  IV SA/Wa 86/08

  Resolution No. 5/58, by which the Council of State approved the change of Polish citizenship, could not apply to persons who submitted applications for the change of Polish citizenship after the date of its issuance. It cannot escape notice that the applicant, Michael L., applied to the State Council for permission to change his Polish citizenship into Israeli citizenship on 20 April 1960, i.e. after the date of issuance of the above-mentioned resolution. Therefore, the permission to change Polish citizenship contained therein could not have any effect with respect to the applicant.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw
  of 25 February 2008 IV SA/Wa 2572/07

  In the case law and doctrine, two opposing positions are presented as to the form of the permit: one indicating that it should be individual, individual, referring to a specific person (so the Supreme Court in the judgment of 17 September 2001 IIIRN 56\01, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15 October 2005 IIOSK 267\05, J. Jagielski, "Obywatelstwo polskie" Warsaw 1998, p. 123), while the second accepting the above principle, allows for the possibility of granting a general permission to change citizenship - when the change of citizenship concerns a larger number of people - indicating that then the permission to change citizenship had a legal effect with respect to the designated person and only in relation to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change (cf.: W. Ramus, Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship, Warsaw 1980, p. 248). However, it cannot be overlooked that an analysis of the provisions of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 leads to the conclusion that the Act regulated a specific procedure in cases of loss of citizenship and determined the sequence of actions. It follows from the wording of Articles 13 and 11 of the Act that the person concerned must first submit an application for permission to change Polish citizenship, then the application should be presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State, and then the Council of State should decide on the permit. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the statutory requirements on which the loss of Polish citizenship depends. A permit from the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to multiple entities if those persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5\58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. This position is represented by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgments of 27 October 2005, IIOSK 983\05 and 14 October 2005, IIOSK 267\05.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court II OSK 48/07

  The view expressed in the judgment under appeal that permission to change citizenship may be granted in the form of a general act cannot be shared. Although the Act did not specify specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State in these cases, in the light of the existing case law, it should be assumed that the decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the course of consideration by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution does not mention these persons does not mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 February 2008 II OSK 98/07

  The use of the terms "adjudicates", "adjudicate" and that the ruling is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and the publication of the ruling in the Monitor Polski replaces service – clearly indicates that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 treated the permission to change citizenship as an act of applying the law understood in such a way that a body specified in the Act (the Council of State), with reference to the legal basis specified in the Act, adjudicates on specific persons to allow these persons to change their Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 6 February 2008, IV SA/Wa 2541/07

  Permission to change citizenship is not a normative executive act to an act of statutory rank, because the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 did not contain a provision authorizing the Council of State to issue an act of this nature, but it is an act of applying the law

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 January 2008, II OSK 1890/06

  The fact that the resolution of the Council of State of 1958 did not indicate the names of the persons concerned does not mean that the resolution could not have been an individual act. The use of the terms "adjudicates", "adjudicate" and that the ruling is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and the publication of the ruling in the Monitor Polski replaces service, clearly indicates that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 treated the permission to change citizenship as an act of applying the law, understood in such a way that the body specified in the statute (the Council of State), with reference to the legal basis specified in the statute, adjudicates in the case of a specific person to allow this person to change Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 29 January 2008, IV SA/Wa 2479/07

  The Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 independently determined the procedure for issuing decisions by the Council of State on permission to change citizenship. Permission to change citizenship is not a normative executive act to an act of statutory rank, because the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 did not contain a provision authorising the Council of State to issue an act of this nature. Permission to change Polish citizenship as a prerequisite for the loss of Polish citizenship must be of an individual nature and addressed to a specific addressee of an act of the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 8 January 2008, IV SA/Wa 2338/07

  If there is no evidence confirming the fact that the applicant's parents' applications were forwarded to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, it cannot be assumed that that resolution also constituted permission for the applicant's parents, and thus for the applicant himself, to change his Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 14 December 2007, IV SA/Wa 2091/07

  It should also be noted that in the doctrine there are divergent views on granting permission to change citizenship. It is assumed that permits for the change of citizenship are of an individual nature (cf. Jagielski, Obywatelstwo polskie, Warsaw 1998, p. 123), and by accepting the above rule, it is possible to grant a general permission to change citizenship - when the change of citizenship concerns a larger number of people - indicating that then the permission to change citizenship had a legal effect against the designated person and only in relation to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change (cf. W. Ramus, Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship, Warsaw 1980, p. 248). On the other hand, the case law has taken the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship, as a prerequisite for the loss of this citizenship, must be of an individual nature and addressed to a specific addressee of an act of the Council of State (judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 September 2001, III RN 56/01, OSNP 2002/13/299). Taking the view that the ruling should be made in the form of a resolution, because the Council of State, as a collegial body, could not issue other decisions, especially since the provisions on administrative procedure were not applied in its activities, the Court took the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of persons, i.e. such a permit could have been constituted by Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, but it could not have covered persons, which, until the date of its adoption, had not applied – like the applicant – for permission to change their nationality, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act was of the nature of a general consent granted for the future. In this matter, the Court shared the legal assessment expressed in the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, II OSK 965/05, 27 October 2005, II OSK 983/05, and 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 12 December 2007 IV SA/Wa 2203/07

  This resolution could legally effectively constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship, because it follows from its wording that it refers directly to persons who applied for permission to change Polish citizenship and left Poland, going to Israel for permanent residence, although it is not of an individual and specific nature, as it does not mention the names of these persons. The group of such persons should be determined by the application(s) of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. In order to assess whether the resolution constituted such a permit, it is only important to determine whether the Prime Minister's application lists names of persons who submitted a permit to change Polish citizenship

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 12 December 2007, IV SA/Wa 2204/07

  A permit from the Council of State, issued in the form of a resolution, could then apply to multiple entities if those persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications on the date of adoption of the resolution. The above position is represented by the Supreme Administrative Court in the judgments of 27 October 2005, II OSK 983/05, of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05, and of 21 December 2006, II OSK 1455/05). The court adjudicating in the present case shares this view.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 12 December 2007, IV SA/Wa 1992/07

  The adjudicating panel is of the opinion that the permission to change citizenship is not a normative executive act to an act of statutory rank, because the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 did not contain a provision authorising the Council of State to issue an act of this nature, but it is an act of applying the law. It should also be pointed out that divergent views are presented in the doctrine regarding the granting of permission to change citizenship. It is assumed that permits for the change of citizenship are of an individual nature [see Jagielski, Obywatelstwo polskie, Warsaw 1998, p. 123], and by adopting the above principle, it is possible to grant a general permission to change citizenship - when the change of citizenship concerns a larger number of people - but then the permission to change citizenship had a legal effect against the designated person and only in relation to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change [see W. Ramus, Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship, Warsaw 1980, p. 248]. On the other hand, the case law has taken the position that permission to change Polish citizenship as a prerequisite for the loss of Polish citizenship must be of an individual nature and addressed to a specific addressee of an act of the Council of State (see the judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 September 2001, file ref. III RN 56/01, OSNP 2002, No. 13, item 299). Taking the view that the ruling should be made in the form of a resolution, because the Council of State, as a collegial body, could not issue other rulings, especially since the provisions on administrative procedure were not applied in its activities, the adjudicating court took the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people. However, the court came to the conclusion, following the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 965/05, of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 983/05 and of 14 October 2005, file no. II OSK 267/05, that a resolution of this type could only constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who, until the date of its adoption, applied for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general consent granted for the future. With It should also be pointed out that divergent views are presented in the doctrine regarding the granting of permission to change citizenship. It is assumed that permits for the change of citizenship are of an individual nature [see Jagielski, Obywatelstwo polskie, Warsaw 1998, p. 123], and by adopting the above principle, it is possible to grant a general permission to change citizenship - when the change of citizenship concerns a larger number of people - but then the permission to change citizenship had a legal effect against the designated person and only in relation to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change [see W. Ramus, Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship, Warsaw 1980, p. 248]. On the other hand, the case law has taken the position that permission to change Polish citizenship as a prerequisite for the loss of Polish citizenship must be of an individual nature and addressed to a specific addressee of an act of the Council of State (see the judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 September 2001, file ref. III RN 56/01, OSNP 2002, No. 13, item 299). Taking the view that the ruling should be made in the form of a resolution, because the Council of State, as a collegial body, could not issue other rulings, especially since the provisions on administrative procedure were not applied in its activities, the adjudicating court took the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people. However, the court came to the conclusion, following the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 965/05, of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 983/05 and of 14 October 2005, file no. II OSK 267/05, that a resolution of this type could only constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who, by the date of its adoption, had applied for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is of a general nature of consent granted for the future

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 December 2007, IV SA/Wa 2167/07

  The Court stated that the issue of interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 8 January 1951 and Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 by public administration bodies could not constitute the basis for declaring the decision under review invalid. The Silesian Voivode conducted an explanatory proceeding, established the factual and legal status of the case, and then made an appropriate interpretation of the provisions, which he expressed by issuing a decision of 30 September 2005. It should be emphasized once again that it is necessary to separate cases of violation of law caused by the interpretation of regulations or their improper application from gross violation of law. The arguments indicated in the complaint to the Court could possibly be effectively raised in ordinary proceedings, but in the present case the administrative proceedings were conducted under an extraordinary procedure – invalidity, and therefore the allegation of incorrect interpretation of the provisions of law made by the authorities could not constitute the basis for granting the applicant's application for annulment of the challenged decision.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 8 November 2007, IV SA/Wa 1845/07

  A permit from the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to multiple entities if those persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution. The above position is represented by the Supreme Administrative Court in the judgments of 27 October 2005, II OSK 983/05 and of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 17 October 2007 IV SA/Wa 1684/07

  the nature of the ruling of the Council of State authorising the change of Polish citizenship is not resolved in the doctrine and jurisprudence. In the decision of 31 March 2006 which it reviewed, the authority interpreted the above provisions in such a way that a resolution was sufficient for this purpose. Such a construction was not denied by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 December 2005. He only expressed a recommendation to examine whether the applications of persons for permission to change their citizenship were covered by the application of the Prime Minister, whether they were forwarded to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution, or whether the applications of these persons were covered by the resolution in the part allowing the change of Polish citizenship to persons who applied for such a permit and left Poland and then obtained Israeli citizenship

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 27 September 2007, IV SA/Wa 1137/07

  In a situation where the wording of the provision raises any doubts as to its interpretation, or the provision does not directly resolve the disputed issue, and its interpretation is shaped by the jurisprudence of the courts, there can be no question of a gross violation of the law.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 6 September 2007, IV SA/Wa 1080/07

  it cannot be assumed a priori that the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel (unpublished) to change their Polish citizenship does not constitute a ruling of the Council of State issued on the basis of Article 13(1) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25), on permission to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who submitted a request for permission to change citizenship before the adoption of the resolution". In the justification for this judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the resolution could legally effectively constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship, because it follows from its content that it refers directly to persons who applied for permission to change Polish citizenship and left Poland, going to Israel for permanent residence, although it is not of an individual and specific nature, as it does not mention the names of these persons. The group of such persons should be determined by the application(s) of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. In order to assess whether the resolution constituted such a permit, it is only important to determine whether the Prime Minister's application mentions the names of the persons who submitted the permit to change Polish citizenship. It is worth noting that the above view of the Supreme Administrative Court is reflected in numerous subsequent judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, e.g. the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 28 February 2007, file no. II OSK 510/06, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 June 2007, file no. 13 June 2007 (unpublished).

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 August 2007 II OSK 1154/06

  The resolution of 23 January 1958 refers directly to people who have already applied for permission to change their Polish citizenship and left Poland for permanent residence in Israel. The fact that the text of the resolution itself does not mention the names of these persons does not mean that the resolution in this respect could not have been of an individual and specific nature, if it turned out that the group of such persons was unambiguously defined by the motion(s) of the Prime Minister in question, in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 August 2007 II OSK 1153/06

  1. The use of the terms "adjudicates", "adjudicate" and that the ruling is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and the announcement of the ruling in the Monitor Polski replaces service, clearly indicates that the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 treated the permission to change citizenship as an act of applying the law understood in such a way that the body specified in the Act (the Council of State), with reference to the legal basis specified in the Act, adjudicates in the case of a specific person to allow this person to change Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 2 August 2007, IV SA/Wa 879/07

  In the opinion of the Court adjudicating in the present case, the consent expressed in the resolution should refer to a specific, designated addressee(s). It cannot be abstract and general. The existing case law of the Supreme Administrative Court recognises its effectiveness provided that it referred to specific, designated persons, even if these persons were not mentioned in it (judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 December 2005, II OSK 1085/05, LEX No. 191007). However, in another ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court expressed a more far-reaching view, which the adjudicating court fully shares, that the resolution could not replace an individual act of authorisation for such travel. It cannot be regarded as a normative act, as the authorisation to issue such an act did not result either from the Constitution or from the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. II OSK 1001/05). In the legal order existing at that time, i.e. in 1958, as well as under the administrative procedure of 1928, under which the applicant's father applied for permission to change his nationality, Polish law was not (and still is not) familiar with the practice of the so-called general acts of applying the law, i.e. those which, due to the circle of addressees, are of a general nature, and specific due to the content of the act (see the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05, ONSAiWSA 2006, No. 2, item 66). The above position is also confirmed by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence cited by the applicant in the appeal and in the complaint (judgment of 17 September 2001, III RN 56/01), which admittedly concerns another resolution of the Council of State (addressed to German repatriates), but retains its full usefulness in the present case.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 30 July 2007, IV SA/Wa 855/07

  Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for the change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 July 2007, II OSK 1267/06

  The decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the process of being examined by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution does not mention these persons does not mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 July 2007
  II OSK 1249/06

  The Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly confirmed that it is necessary to demonstrate in the course of administrative proceedings whether an individually submitted application for the issuance of an appropriate permit has been subject to the appropriate procedure in order to be dealt with by the Council of State. This court recalled the view expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 September 2001, ref. no. II RN 56/01 (OSNAPiUS 2002/13/299), according to which the permission to change Polish citizenship, as a prerequisite for the loss of Polish citizenship, was an individual act of the Council of State addressed to a specific addressee. The individual nature of the permission to change citizenship is also presented in the doctrine (see: J. Jagielski "Obywatelstwo polskie", Warsaw 1998, p. 123; In Ramus "Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship", Warsaw 1980, p. 248). A permit to change citizenship had legal effect only with respect to a designated person and only with respect to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change (cf. the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 June 2007, file ref. II OSK 1065/06, unpublished).

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 July 2007
  II OSK 1066/06

  Thus, the Provincial Administrative Court shared the view presented in the above-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05 and in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, II OSK 965/05 (ONSAiWSA 2006 No. 2, item 67), in the light of which Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel to change their Polish citizenship could not constitute a permit for the change of Polish citizenship change of Polish citizenship in relation to persons who did not apply for permission to change citizenship until the date of its adoption, because it is impossible to speak of granting permission to a person who did not apply for such a permit. It cannot be assumed that the permit may apply to applications that have not yet been submitted and be a general consent granted for the future. In the cited judgments, the Supreme Administrative Court explained that the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 is not a normative executive act to the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951, but an act of applying the law. The provisions of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 provide for the following sequence of events: first, the submission of an application by the person concerned to the competent authority, then the presentation of the application by the Prime Minister, and only then does the Council of State decide on the permission to change the citizenship of a specific person. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the essential requirements introduced by the Act, the fulfilment of which determines the loss of Polish citizenship. It is necessary to agree with the position of the Court of First Instance that the resolution of 23 January 1958, in relation to the applications submitted after its adoption, could only be treated as an announcement of granting permission to change citizenship. If one were to accept the arguments of the party filing the cassation appeal that it is possible to grant permission to persons who were not mentioned by name and surname in the resolution, then in no event could this permission apply to persons who did not submit an application, and thus on the date of adoption of the resolution did not apply for permission to change their Polish citizenship. For these reasons, the appealed judgment annulling the decision of the President of the Office for Repatriation and Foreigners is in accordance with the law, because the resolution of the Council of State in question could not constitute a permit to change the applicant's citizenship, since the application for permission to change citizenship was submitted in July 1958.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 June 2007 II OSK 1043/06

  The Polish Citizenship Act of 8 January 1951 provided for the possibility of losing Polish citizenship as a result of acquiring foreign citizenship only after obtaining permission from the Polish authorities to change citizenship (Article 11). The Council of State was responsible for adjudicating on the loss of citizenship, including permission to change citizenship in connection with the acquisition of foreign citizenship. Pursuant to Article 13(1), (2) and (3) of the said Act, the Council of State decides on the loss of Polish citizenship, the decision on the loss of Polish citizenship is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and the publication of such a decision in the Monitor Polski replaces the service of the decision.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 June 2007
  II OSK 1155/06

  The view expressed in the judgment under appeal that permission to change citizenship may be granted in the form of a general act cannot be shared. Although the Act did not specify specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State in these cases, in the light of the existing case law, it should be assumed that the decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the course of consideration by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution does not mention these persons does not mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 June 2007
  II OSK 1064/06

  The Polish Citizenship Act of 8 January 1951 provided for the possibility of losing Polish citizenship as a result of acquiring foreign citizenship only after obtaining permission from the Polish authorities to change citizenship (Article 11). The Council of State was responsible for adjudicating on the loss of citizenship, including permission to change citizenship in connection with the acquisition of foreign citizenship. Pursuant to Article 13(1), (2) and (3) of the said Act, the Council of State decides on the loss of Polish citizenship, the decision on the loss of Polish citizenship is made at the request of the Prime Minister, and the publication of such a decision in the Monitor Polski replaces the service of the decision.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 25 May 2007, case no. IV SA/Wa 589/07

  Under no circumstances can the effectiveness of the Resolution of the Council of State of the People's Republic of Poland No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel to change their citizenship with respect to persons who applied for permission to change their citizenship after it had been taken.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 May 2007, IV SA/Wa 696/07

  An analysis of the provisions of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25, as amended) leads to the conclusion that the said Act regulated a specific procedure in cases of loss of citizenship and determined the sequence of actions. It follows from the wording of Articles 13 and 11 of the Act that the interested person should first submit an application for permission to change Polish citizenship, then the application should be presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State, and then the Council of State should decide on the permit. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the statutory requirements on which the loss of Polish citizenship depends.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 21 May 2007, IV SA/Wa 655/07

  Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could constitute an individual permit to change citizenship for persons applying for this permit and extend its legal effects in this respect also to their children, if there were grounds for treating it as a permit to change citizenship at the same time covering a larger number of persons, in a situation where all these persons could be specified by name, and the applications of these persons would be covered by the application of the Prime Minister to the Council of State in accordance with Article 13(2) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship and forwarded by the Prime Minister to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, and moreover, it could be established that the resolution in the part permitting the change of Polish citizenship to persons who have not been granted the right to change their Polish citizenship. who applied for such a permit and left Poland, and then obtained Israeli citizenship concerned the applications of these specific people. Only in such a situation could it be concluded that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 was a permit issued on the basis of Article 13(1) of the Act of 5 January 1951 on Polish citizenship for specifically designated persons.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 May 2007 II OSK 673/06

  Therefore, it is important for the resolution of this case whether the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 was of a general nature, or whether it can be regarded under certain conditions as an act of application of law of an individual nature, constituting an effective authorisation to change citizenship within the meaning of Article 13(1) and (2) of the Act granted to persons (such as the applicant), who applied for a change of nationality before it was issued. In this resolution, the Council of State decided: "It is permitted to change Polish citizenship to the citizenship of the State of Israel to persons who have left or will leave the territory of the Polish People's Republic, going for permanent residence to the State of Israel and have submitted or will submit a request for permission to change Polish citizenship." Therefore, the act does not mention the personal data of the persons who were granted the permit in question. The court of first instance, referring to this resolution, assumed that it was an act of application of the law, which constituted a general permission to change Polish citizenship into citizenship of the State of Israel in relation to persons who had already left Poland before the date of its adoption and had previously applied for permission to change citizenship. This position cannot be accepted. It should be noted that the resolution refers primarily to a group of people who have already applied for permission to change their Polish citizenship and left Poland for permanent residence in Israel. The fact that the text of the resolution itself does not mention the names of these persons does not mean that the resolution in this respect is not of an individual and specific nature, if it turns out that the group of such persons was unambiguously defined by the motion(s) of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. Although the Act did not specify specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State in these cases, in the light of the existing case law, it should be assumed that a decision of the Council of State on permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 May 2007 II OSK 661/06

  It was therefore the duty of the authorities examining this case to determine whether the applications of the applicant's parents for permission to change citizenship were covered by the request of the Prime Minister and whether they had been communicated to the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. Only the determination of these circumstances entitled the authorities to conclude that the applications of these persons were also covered by Resolution No. 5/58 in the part allowing the change of Polish citizenship to persons who applied for such a permit and left Poland and subsequently obtained Israeli citizenship. Therefore, the complainant's allegation that in the case under consideration the above-mentioned circumstances were not considered by the administrative authorities at all, which was also not noticed by the Court of First Instance, nor their significance for the purposes of resolving the present case, is justified. There are no documents in the administrative files of the case that could constitute the basis for such findings.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 April 2007, IV SA/Wa 522/07

  The adjudicating panel is of the opinion that the permission to change citizenship is not a normative executive act to an act of statutory rank, because the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 did not contain a provision authorising the Council of State to issue an act of this nature, but it is an act of applying the law. It should also be pointed out that divergent views are presented in the doctrine regarding the granting of permission to change citizenship. It is assumed that permits for the change of citizenship are of an individual nature [see Jagielski, Obywatelstwo polskie, Warsaw 1998, p. 123], and by adopting the above principle, it is possible to grant a general permission to change citizenship - when the change of citizenship concerns a larger number of people - but then the permission to change citizenship had a legal effect against the designated person and only in relation to the acquisition of foreign citizenship specifically specified in the decision of the Council of State on the change [see W. Ramus, Institutions of Law on Polish Citizenship, Warsaw 1980, p. 248]. On the other hand, the case law has taken the position that permission to change Polish citizenship as a prerequisite for the loss of Polish citizenship must be of an individual nature and addressed to a specific addressee of an act of the Council of State (see the judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 September 2001, file ref. III RN 56/01, OSNP 2002, No. 13, item 299). Taking the view that the ruling should be made in the form of a resolution, because the Council of State, as a collegial body, could not issue other rulings, especially since the provisions on administrative procedure were not applied in its activities, the adjudicating court took the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people. However, the court came to the conclusion, following the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 965/05, of 27 October 2005, file no. II OSK 983/05 and of 14 October 2005, file no. II OSK 267/05, that a resolution of this type could only constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who, until the date of its adoption, applied for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general consent granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19 April 2007, II OSK 562/06

  In the present case, it was established that the applicant's parents submitted an application to the Council of State for permission to change his nationality in connection with his permanent departure to Israel, also on behalf of the applicant's minor, on 27 October 1959. After moving to Israel, the applicant obtained Israeli citizenship in 1960. In view of the above, the view expressed in the above-mentioned judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05 and of 27 October 2005, II OSK 965/05, according to which Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could not constitute a permit for the change of Polish citizenship in relation to persons who who had not applied for permission to change their citizenship until the date of its adoption, because it cannot be said that the permit was granted to a person who did not apply for such a permit. It cannot be assumed that the permit may apply to applications that have not yet been submitted and be a general consent granted for the future. In the judgments cited above, the Supreme Administrative Court explained that the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 is not a normative executive act to the 1951 Act on Polish Citizenship, but an act of applying the law. The Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 provides for the following sequence of events: first, the submission of an application by the person concerned to the competent authority, then the presentation of the application by the Prime Minister, and only then does the Council of State decide on the permission to change the citizenship of a specific person. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the essential requirements introduced by the Act, the fulfilment of which determines the loss of Polish citizenship. The resolution of 23 January 1958, in relation to the applications submitted after the adoption of the resolution, could only be treated as an announcement of granting permission to change citizenship. To sum up, while one can agree with the view that it is possible to grant permission to persons who were not mentioned by name in the resolution, in no case could this permission apply to persons who did not submit an application, and thus did not apply for permission to change their Polish citizenship on the date of adoption of the resolution. Therefore, that resolution could not constitute a permit to change the applicant's nationality, since the application for permission to change citizenship was submitted in 1959. This means that the cassation appeal was based on justified cassation grounds

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 March 2007, case no. IV SA/Wa 2309/06

  A permit to change Polish citizenship issued in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of people. The Court shares the position adopted in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court (judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, file ref. no. II OSK 965/05, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, file ref. no. II OSK 983/05, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 October 2005, file ref. no. II OSK 267/05) that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could not constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who are not which, until the date of its adoption, did not apply for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general consent granted for the future. In the present case, according to the administrative files, Celina and Jakub W., the applicant's parents, applied to the Council of State for permission to change their citizenship in 1961, i.e. after the Council of State had already adopted Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958. Therefore, it should be concluded that the authority erred in assuming that the permission resulting from the resolution in question also applied to the applicant's parents, and thus also to the applicant, due to the fact that on the date of adoption of the resolution there were no applications from the persons concerned – the applicant's parents. In the opinion of the Court, the said resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958, in relation to the applications of the applicant's parents of 17 April 1961, could at most be treated only as an announcement of a possible permission to change citizenship by the above-mentioned persons.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 7 March 2007, IV SA/Wa 200/07

  When assessing the effectiveness of Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, it must be concluded that it caused the legal effects indicated therein, as an effective permission to change citizenship, in relation to persons meeting the criteria indicated in the resolution, provided that legal events took place during the period of its validity

• Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court of 28 February 2007 II OSK 510/06

  The adjudicating bench in the case in question fully upholds the position presented so far by the Supreme Administrative Court, according to which it cannot be assumed in advance that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 constituted a ruling of the Council of State on permission to change Polish citizenship. Although the Act did not specify specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State in these cases, it is impossible to agree with the position that it does not matter whether the resolution concerned individual applications submitted by persons intending to leave Poland. The decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of people, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the process of being considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution did not mention the names of these persons does not mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons. Without clarifying and considering these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the applicant lost his Polish citizenship, and therefore the decisions in this case were issued in violation of Article 11 of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 26 February 2007, IV SA/Wa 2418/06

  the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of persons, i.e. such a permit could be constituted by Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, but it could not cover persons who had not applied for permission to change their citizenship until the date of its adoption, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act was of the nature of a general consent granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 5 February 2007, IV SA/Wa 2450/06

  The permission of the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to a larger number of entities if these persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had applied for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution - because there are no grounds to assume that such an act is a general rule granted for the future.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 1 February 2007, IV SA/Wa 2397/06

  the said Resolution No. 5/58 constituted a permit in relation to persons who, before the date of adoption of the resolution, applied for permission to change their citizenship, provided that their application was presented to the Council of State by the Prime Minister by the date of its adoption.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 January 2007 II OSK 1426/05

  The Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 provides for the following sequence of events: first, the submission of an application by the person concerned to the competent authority, then the presentation of the application by the Prime Minister, and only then does the Council of State decide on the permission to change the citizenship of a specific person. This order cannot be reversed, as this would violate the essential requirements introduced by the Act, the fulfilment of which determines the loss of Polish citizenship. The resolution of 23 January 1958, in relation to the applications submitted after the adoption of that resolution, could only be treated as an announcement of granting permission to change citizenship

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 24 January 2007, IV SA/Wa 2241/06
  1. When seeking a proper interpretation of the provisions of the 1962 Act on Polish Citizenship, it is necessary to exclude such an understanding of them that leads to differentiation of the legal situation of entities where it does not result directly from the content of specific normative regulations.
  2. During the period of its validity, Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State had the legal effects indicated in the Act with respect to all entities covered by its subject matter.
  3. Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State produced the legal effects indicated therein, as an effective permission to change citizenship, in relation to persons meeting the criteria indicated in the resolution, provided that legal events took place during the period of its validity.
• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 January 2007 IV SA/Wa 2106/06
  1. The court (in the composition examining the case in question) does not share the line of jurisprudence which puts forward the thesis that individual permits for the change of citizenship are necessary, and treats the resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 as contrary to the Act of 5 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, or makes the possibility of its application dependent on the date of submission of applications (applications) by the interested parties to the Council of State for permission to change their Polish citizenship.
  2. The assumption that it was not necessary for the Council of State to issue a decision on the consent to change citizenship addressed by name to the applicant in this matter does not in fact infringe the rights of the persons concerned, provided that they actually submitted an application in this matter.
• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 January 2007, IV SA/Wa 2107/06

  The court adjudicating in the present case fully shares the position on the legal forms of issuing a permit for the change of citizenship by the Council of State, expressed in the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 18 April 1985, file no. III SA. 404/85, (publ. ONSA of 1985 No. I, item 23), in which it was stated that the provisions of administrative procedure did not apply before state authorities, to which the Council of State belonged. In view of the above conditions, the Court found the position that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State constituted a "general act of applying the law" issued by the Council of State within the scope of its competences was correct. This act constituted a general, in terms of subjectivity, permission to change Polish citizenship by persons who left Poland in order to move permanently to Israel, provided that they expressed their willingness to change their citizenship. In doing so, the Court took into account the content of the application of the Prime Minister of 29 November 1957 No. D.III/4/70/57 – addressed to the Council of State, in which, invoking Article 13(2) of the Act on Civil Procedure. He requests the adoption of a resolution on the general granting of a permit to change citizenship to Polish citizens who have left or will leave the territory of the People's Republic of Poland for permanent residence in the State of Israel. As a result of this motion, the discussed resolution No. 5/58 was adopted, and its content only slightly differs from the project proposed by the Prime Minister. The motion of the Prime Minister of 29 November 1957 was therefore a motion referred to in Article 13(2) of the Act on the Functioning of the Republic of Poland, and it follows from its wording that, like Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, it was of a general nature in the sense that it did not mention the names of the persons to whom it referred. It is also worth emphasizing that in the discussion on the draft resolution No. 5/58, one of the Deputy Ministers gave the number of people who left Poland and went to the State of Israel in particular years - distinguishing those who left on the basis of a travel document, without personalizing the indicated data. Therefore, also at this stage of the proceedings – preceding the adoption of the resolution in question – no suggestion was made that permits for the change of citizenship should have precisely defined addressees, i.e. addressees mentioned by name. Moreover, it was also not considered to differentiate the legal situation of those who will leave before the adoption of the resolution, the content of which was discussed, and those who will possibly decide to leave after its adoption. For the above reasons, the Court – in the composition examining the case in question – does not share the line of jurisprudence which puts forward the thesis that individual permits to change citizenship are necessary, and treats the resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 as contrary to the Act of 5 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, or makes the possibility of its application dependent on the date of submission of applications (applications) by the interested parties to the Council of State for permission to change Polish citizenship. When considering the scope of legal effects that occurred as a result of the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58, in other systemic and systemic realities (in 1959), one cannot directly use the standards of the state governed by the rule of law and the standards of interpretation of regulations currently applied. Adopting such a purely interpretative criterion would inevitably lead to the conclusion that, if not the entirety, then at least a significant part of the provisions forming the legal order at that time – were de jure unlawful, a conclusion that cannot be accepted today. After all, it is about assessing the effects of legal situations that occurred at that time as a result of the events occurring at that time. However, it is not about assessing what legal effects the current operation of the resolution would have. In the Court's opinion, the assumption that in the case of consent to the change of citizenship it was not necessary for the Council of State to issue a decision addressed by name to the applicant in this matter, does not in fact violate the rights of the interested parties, provided that they actually submitted an application in this case.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 January 2007, IV SA/Wa 2105/06

  In the present case, the applicant's parents applied for permission to change their nationality in 1959, i.e. after the date of adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, and the legal effect of the resolution cannot apply to persons who submitted applications after the date of its adoption. Consent to change citizenship expressed in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger group of individualized people. It is necessary to agree with the position of the Supreme Administrative Court from the above-quoted rulings that it cannot be said that permission to change Polish citizenship is granted to a person who has not applied for it until the date of adoption of the resolution." It is impossible to agree with the argumentation of the authority, with reference to the justification of the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 January 2006 IV SA/Wa 1567/05 that "the scope of legal effects of the resolution of the Council of State of 1958 should not be related to the current standards of law application, when the legal system was shaped according to different rules; In order to correctly interpret the regulations in force today, it must be taken into account that the legal act, the scope of which is questioned, was a source of specific rights for citizens, as it created the possibility of leaving Polish in the authoritarian system of the time"

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 January 2007, case no. IV SA/Wa 2104/06

  Consent to change citizenship expressed in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger group of individualized people. It is necessary to agree with the position of the Supreme Administrative Court from the above-quoted rulings that "... It cannot be said that permission to change Polish citizenship has been granted to a person who has not applied for it until the date of adoption of the resolution....". It is impossible to agree with the argumentation of the authority, with reference to the justification of the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 January 2006 IV SA/Wa 1567/05 that "the scope of legal effects of the resolution of the Council of State of 1958 should not be related to the current standards of applying the law, when the legal system was shaped according to different rules...; In order to correctly interpret the regulations in force today, it must be taken into account that the legal act, the scope of which is questioned, was a source of specific rights for citizens, as it created the possibility of leaving Polish in the authoritarian system of the time"

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 21 December 2006, IV SA/Wa 1963/06

  In the present case, the applicant applied for permission to change his nationality in 1961, i.e. after the date of adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, and it cannot be regarded as a permit to change his nationality

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 December 2006
  II OSK 1455/05

  The decision of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of people, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the process of being considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The mere fact that the resolution did not mention these persons does not mean that the addressee of the resolution in this part were not designated persons

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 December 2006
  II OSK 1450/05

  Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could not constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who had not applied for permission to change citizenship until the date of its adoption, because it is impossible to speak of granting permission to a person who did not apply for such a permit, such a position cannot be directly applied to the situation, when an application to the Council of State for permission to change Polish citizenship, as in the case under consideration, was submitted in 1957, i.e. before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 December 2006, IV SA/Wa 1985/06

  In the present case, according to the administrative files, Genia and Sergei Z., the applicant's parents, applied to the Council of State for permission to change their citizenship in 1959, i.e. after the Council of State had already adopted Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958. Therefore, it should be concluded that the authority erred in assuming that the permission resulting from the resolution in question also applied to the applicant's parents, and thus also to the applicant, due to the fact that on the date of adoption of the resolution there were no applications from the persons concerned – the applicant's parents. In the Court's opinion, the said resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958, in relation to the applications of the applicant's parents from 1959, could at most be treated only as an announcement of the possible granting of permission to change citizenship by the above-mentioned persons.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 December 2006, IV SA/Wa 1962/06

  the permission could have been constituted by Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, but it could not have covered persons who, until the date of its adoption, had not applied for permission to change their citizenship, because there are no grounds to assume that such an act was of the nature of a general consent granted for the future. In this matter, the Court shared the legal assessment expressed in the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, II OSK 965/05, 27 October 2005, II OSK 983/05, and 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05.

• Sentence
  of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw
  of 6 December 2006
  IV SA/Wa 1964/06

  In the opinion of the Court, when considering the scope of legal effects that occurred as a result of the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58, in other systemic and systemic realities (in 1959), one cannot directly use the standards of the rule of law and the standards of interpretation of regulations currently applied. Adopting such a purely interpretative criterion would inevitably lead to the conclusion that, if not the entirety, then at least a significant part of the provisions forming the legal order at that time – were de jure unlawful, a conclusion that cannot be accepted today. After all, it is about assessing the effects of legal situations that occurred at that time as a result of the events occurring at that time. However, it is not about assessing what legal effects the current operation of the resolution would have. In the Court's opinion, the assumption that in the case of consent to the change of citizenship it was not necessary for the Council of State to issue a decision addressed by name to the applicant in this matter, does not in fact violate the rights of the interested parties, provided that they actually submitted an effective application in this case. Taking the above into account, the Court, on the basis of Article 151 of the Act of 30 August 2002. The Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts (Journal of Laws No. 153, item 1270, as amended) adjudicated as the operative part.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 6 December 2006, IV SA/Wa 2020/06

  The Court found the position that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State constituted a "general act of applying the law" issued by the Council of State within the scope of its competences. This act constituted a general, in terms of subjective terms, permission to change Polish citizenship by persons who left Poland in order to move permanently to Israel, provided that they expressed a desire to change their citizenship

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 27 October 2006, IV SA/Wa 1519/06

  The Court does not share the line of jurisprudence requiring individual permits to change citizenship, and treats Resolution No. 5/58 on permits to change Polish citizenship for persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel as contrary to the Act of 5 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, or makes the possibility of its application dependent on the date of submission of applications (applications) by the interested parties to the Council of State for permission to change Polish citizenship.

• Decision of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 18 August 2006 IV SA/Wa 1315/06

  The permission of the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to a larger number of entities if these persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had applied for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution. In this matter, the court shared the legal assessment expressed in the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, II OSK 983/05 and of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05. Translating the above into the present case, it should be pointed out that the applicant's parents applied to the Council of State for permission to change their citizenship in 1957, i.e. before the adoption by the Council of State of Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958. Therefore, in principle, the resolution in question could constitute a permit to change the Polish citizenship also covering the applicant's parents, and thus the applicant himself. However, the condition for the above was that before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958, the applications of the applicant's parents were submitted to the Council of State by the Prime Minister

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 28 September 2006, IV SA/Wa 1510/06

  In the present case, the applicant's parents submitted the relevant applications on 26 January 1956 and 26 January 1957. This does not mean, however, that Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State did not apply to them. As mentioned above, it was addressed to persons who had submitted or would submit a request for permission to change their Polish citizenship. The above thesis is justified due to the content of the request of the Prime Minister of 29 November 1957, addressed to the Council of State, in which, invoking Article 13(2) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, he requests the adoption of a resolution on the general granting of a permit to change citizenship to Polish citizens who have left or will leave the territory of the People's Republic of Poland going for permanent residence to the State of Israel. As a result of this motion, Resolution No. 5/58 was adopted, and its content slightly differs from the draft proposed by the Prime Minister. The motion of the Prime Minister of 29 November 1957 was therefore a motion referred to in Article 13(2) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, and it follows from its wording that, like Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, it was of a general nature in the sense that it did not mention the names of persons concerned.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 27 September 2006 IV SA/Wa 999/06

  the resolution of the Council of State was a source of entitlement for people of Jewish nationality leaving for their home country, as an exception to the actual limitation of the possibility of migration of other citizens across borders. Taking into account the above circumstances, before assessing the legal effects of the functioning in legal transactions of the resolution on the permission to change citizenship, until the date of its repeal by the Resolution of the Council of State No. 26/84 of 8 March 1984 (unpublished)

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 21 September 2006, IV SA/Wa 1135/06

  As previously indicated, in the court's opinion, when considering the scope of legal effects that occurred as a result of the issuance of a legal act – Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State – in other systemic and systemic realities (in 1959), one cannot directly use the standards of the rule of law and the standards of interpretation of regulations currently in use. After all, it is about assessing the effects of legal situations that occurred at that time as a result of the events occurring at that time. However, it is not about assessing what legal effects the current operation of the resolution would have. Taking into account, as one of the essential values of a state governed by the rule of law, the principle of legal certainty and stability, regardless of its current assessment, one should refer to the standards of the time, as long as it does not manifestly result in a violation of fundamental civil rights and freedoms. As previously indicated, in the court's opinion, the assumption that in the case of consent to change citizenship it was not necessary for the Council of State to issue a decision by name addressed to the applicant in this matter, does not in fact infringe the rights of the persons concerned, provided that they have in fact successfully submitted an application in this case. Such an assessment cannot be changed by the fact that, in different political, social or economic realities, the applicants or their children are not interested in their legal consequences in the form of loss of citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 20 September 2006,

  the court took the view that the permission to change Polish citizenship could apply to a larger number of people, i.e. such a permit could have been constituted by Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, but it could not have covered persons who, by the date of its adoption, had not applied for permission to change citizenship until the date of its adoption, because there were no grounds for acceptance, that such an act was of the nature of a general consent granted for the future. In this matter, the court shared the legal assessment expressed in the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005, II OSK 965/05; of 27 October 2005, II OSK 983/05; of 14 October 2005, II OSK 267/05.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 September 2006 II OSK 464/06

  The fact of issuing a travel document cannot be regarded as the same as a permit to change one's nationality, not only because it is the Council of State that must authorise the change of nationality and not the authority which issued such documents, but, above all, because the authorisation to change one's nationality cannot be presumed per facta concludentia. The requirement to meet statutory formal standards cannot be relativized or derived from awareness of the legal consequences of receiving a travel document and leaving Polish. Awareness of the legal consequences of an action in public law is irrelevant.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 6 September 2006, IV SA/Wa 1233/06

  The court in the composition examining the case in question does not share the line of jurisprudence which pushes the thesis that individual permits for the change of citizenship are necessary, and treats Resolution No. 5/58 as contrary to the Act of 5 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, or makes the possibility of its application dependent on the date of submission of applications (applications) by the interested parties to the Council of State for permission to change their Polish citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 24 August 2006, IV SA/Wa 840/06

  Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel to change their Polish citizenship (unpubl.) could legally constitute a legally effective permit to change Polish citizenship, because it follows from its wording that it refers directly to persons who applied for permission to change their Polish citizenship and left Poland to go to Israel for permanent residence, even though it does not mention the names of these persons, and therefore is not of an individual and specific nature. The group of such persons should be determined by the application(s) of the Prime Minister, referred to in Article 13(2) of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951, addressed to the Council of State. The adjudicating panel in the present case shares the view of the Supreme Administrative Court that the said Resolution No. 5/58 could have constituted a permit in respect of persons who, before the date of adoption of that resolution, applied for permission to change their citizenship, provided that their application had been presented to the Council of State by the date of its adoption.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 24 August 2006, IV SA/Wa 1010/06

  On the other hand, there is no legal justification for the applicant's view that the resolution of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 does not constitute a decision of that body on permission to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who applied for permission to change their citizenship before the adoption of that resolution. The Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship does not specify specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship. Such a ruling in the form of a resolution, as an act issued by a collegial body, such as the Council of State, could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the process of being considered by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The fact that the resolution did not mention these persons does not in itself mean that the addressee of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 21 June 2006, IV SA/Wa 412/06

  It follows from the wording of Articles 13 and 11 of the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951 that the person concerned must first submit an application for permission to change Polish citizenship, then the application should be presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State, and then the Council of State should decide on the permit. A permit from the Council of State issued in the form of a resolution could then apply to multiple entities if those persons could be identified. In other words, Resolution No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 could refer to persons who had submitted applications for a change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 2 June 2006 IV SA/Wa 2333/05
  1. Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel (unpublished) to change their Polish citizenship was not made in the form of an administrative decision within the meaning of the provisions of the Regulation of 22 March 1928 on administrative proceedings (Journal of Laws No. 36, item 341, as amended) or the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure.
  2. This resolution could refer to persons who submitted applications for the change of Polish citizenship before the date of its adoption and the applications were presented by the Prime Minister to the Council of State. However, it could not refer to those persons who had not yet submitted such applications - on the date of adoption of the resolution.
• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 April 2006, IV SA/Wa 1029/05
  1. The reference in the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 on the permission to change the Polish citizenship of persons leaving for permanent residence in Israel to the provision of Article 13(1) and (2) of the Citizenship Act, which was included in Chapter Four of the said Act, dealing with proceedings, cannot be analysed in isolation from the provisions of Chapter Three, which concerned the loss of Polish citizenship. This leads to the conclusion that de jure it was one thing to lose citizenship and another thing to deprive it of citizenship, which was announced in the Monitor Polski (Article 13(2)).
  2. None of the provisions of law in force at that time, or Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, or finally the Council of State, which issued the act of applying the law, provided for the necessity or even the need to publish such a resolution.
• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23 March 2006 II OSK 1297/05

  The Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25, as amended) independently determined the procedure for issuing decisions by the Council of State on the permission to change citizenship.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23 March 2006, II OSK 1360/05

  It cannot be assumed in advance that the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel to change their Polish citizenship does not constitute a decision of the Council of State on permission to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who applied for permission to change their citizenship before the adoption of that resolution. The Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25, as amended) did not specify specific requirements as to the form of decisions of the Council of State in these cases. Such a ruling in the form of a resolution could apply to a larger number of persons, provided that it referred to designated persons whose applications were in the course of consideration by the Council of State before the adoption of the resolution of 23 January 1958. The fact that the resolution did not mention these persons does not in itself mean that the addressees of the resolution in this part were not designated persons.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23 March 2006 II OSK 1361/05

  The rules and procedure for handling cases for permission to change citizenship were determined only by the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship, and later by the Act of 15 February 1962 on Polish Citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 26 January 2006, IV SA/Wa 1642/05

  When assessing the effectiveness of Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State, it must be concluded that it caused the legal effects indicated therein, as an effective permission to change citizenship, in relation to persons meeting the criteria indicated in the resolution, provided that legal events took place during the period of its validity

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 25 January 2006, IV SA/Wa 1591/05

  Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on the permission to change the Polish citizenship of persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel (unpublished) in relation to persons who submitted applications for permission to change their Polish citizenship after the decision was taken, did not constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship with the effect of losing this citizenship. In relation to applications submitted after the decision was made, it could only be treated as a promise to grant permission to change citizenship.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 January 2006, IV SA/Wa 1567/05
  1. Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel to change their Polish citizenship (unpublished) constituted a permit to change citizenship within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship.
  2. The interpretation presented in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, ref. no. II OSK 965/05, the acceptance of which as appropriate would result in making the occurrence of the legal effect (loss of citizenship) dependent on the performance by a public authority (the Prime Minister) of an action consisting in the submission of an individual application for a change of citizenship, or at least a compilation of these applications before the adoption of the relevant resolution.
  3. The legal act of the Council of State, which was in force until its repeal (Resolution 5/58), resulted in legal consequences resulting from obtaining it as a required permission to change citizenship.
• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005
  II OSK 983/05

  Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 could not constitute a permit to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who had not applied for permission to change citizenship until the date of its adoption, because it is impossible to speak of granting permission to a person who did not apply for such a permit. It cannot be assumed that the permit may apply to applications that have not yet been submitted and be a general consent granted for the future

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005
  II OSK 965/05

  It cannot be assumed a priori that the Resolution of the Council of State No. 5/58 of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel (unpubl.) to change their Polish citizenship does not constitute a ruling of the Council of State issued on the basis of Article 13(1) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25), on permission to change Polish citizenship in relation to persons who submitted a request for permission to change citizenship before the adoption of this resolution.

• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 October 2005 II OSK 1001/05
  1. Pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship (Journal of Laws No. 4, item 25), a Polish citizen could acquire foreign citizenship as a result of losing Polish citizenship if he obtained a permit from the competent Polish authority to change his citizenship. Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on allowing persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel to change their Polish citizenship (unpublished) could not replace an individual act of permission for such departure.
  2. Resolution No. 5/58 of the Council of State of 23 January 1958 on the authorization to change the Polish citizenship of persons leaving for permanent residence in the State of Israel cannot be considered a normative act, because the authorization to issue such an act does not arise either from the Constitution or from the Polish Citizenship Act of 1951. as a legal basis, Article 13(1) and (2) of the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish Citizenship, but these provisions do not authorise the Council of State to issue a normative executive act to the Act.
• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 16 August 2005, IV SA/Wa 491/05

  A necessary condition for obtaining a permit is the expression of the will to change citizenship by the person interested in changing it. However, the premises that guided the applicant in applying for a change of citizenship are generally irrelevant. Only the determination now, in an individual case, that the application was not actually submitted (e.g. the application was submitted under duress - thus did not constitute a legally effective declaration of the applicant's will) will mean, depending on the situation - in the case of an individual permit, that it was issued incorrectly (the condition of expressing the desire to change citizenship was not met) and in the case of a general permit (as in the case of resolution 5/58), that in a given case it did not have legal effects in relation to a specific person, because the permit, by virtue of the law, could only cover cases of expressing the desire to change citizenship

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 15 April 2005 II SA/Wa 2481/04

  In public law, the intention of the person concerned, his or her will, which is not expressly disclosed in the application addressed to the state authorities, are devoid of legal significance. Declarations of intent are not interpreted according to the criteria set out in the Civil Code (Articles 60, 61 and 65 of the Civil Code). Therefore, it was irrelevant what motives guided the applicants in 1959 when they applied for permission to change their nationality. Regardless of their intentions and motives, the case should have been handled in accordance with the law in force at the time.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 15 April 2005 II SA/Wa 2140/04

  In the light of the regulations contained in the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship, it was required, as previously noted, to issue an individual permit to change citizenship, which could not be replaced by a general resolution of the Council of State. It should be noted that Article 11(5) of the Act of 8 January 1951 only in the case of acquisition of foreign citizenship "in accordance with paragraphs 1-4" resulted in the loss of Polish citizenship. In the opinion of the Court adjudicating on the present case, the failure to comply with the requirement to obtain an individual permit under Article 11(1)-(4) of the Act in question cannot be justified by the argument that the permit to change citizenship was established primarily as an element of the regulation of public authority in relation to the aspirations of persons interested in changing citizenship

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 1 January 2005, IV SA/Wa 537/05

  It does not follow from the Act of 8 January 1951 on Polish citizenship (Journal of Laws of 1951 No. 4, item 25) and the Act of 15 February 1962 on Polish citizenship (Journal of Laws of 2000 No. 28, item 353) that the permission to change citizenship had to be expressed in an individual act, and therefore German repatriates could lose Polish citizenship on the basis of a resolution of the Council of State.

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 10 November 2004, II SA/Wa 1717/04

  There is no doubt that H.Z.'s request contained in the application of 4 September 2001 (k-16) was aimed at issuing a certificate of Polish citizenship. Meanwhile, the Voivode (...) by issuing the decision of (...) January 2002 certified the loss of Polish citizenship. The President of the Office for Repatriation and Foreigners upheld such a decision, not paying attention to the fact that the issued decision did not in fact settle the matter within the scope of the party's application. The authorities of both instances ruled that she had lost her Polish citizenship, while the applicant applied for a declaration of Polish citizenship. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the decision of the Voivode (...) is a decision made within the limits of the applicant's request, and thus that it settles the matter which is the subject of the proceedings. Certification (confirmation) of the loss of Polish citizenship is not the same as refusal to certify Polish citizenship

• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw of 9 September 2004 V SA 4112/03

  Article 17(4) of the Act of 15 February 1962 on Polish Citizenship (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2000, No. 28, item 353, as amended) provides that the possession and loss of Polish citizenship is confirmed by the voivode. Refusal to confirm the possession of Polish citizenship or its loss takes place by way of an administrative decision. An analysis of this regulation shows that it concerns four factual situations, in relation to which, firstly, the competent voivode ascertains the possession of Polish citizenship, secondly, declares the loss of Polish citizenship, thirdly, refuses to confirm the possession of Polish citizenship, and fourthly, refuses to ascertain the loss of Polish citizenship. The legislator has clearly stated that a declaration of possession or a declaration of loss of Polish citizenship are two positive decisions that are made when a party applies for certification of Polish citizenship and, respectively, when it requests certification of its loss