Summary

The administrative law reform foresees the adoption of the State Liability Act providing persons with remedies for the protection and restoration of their rights which have been violated by the administration in the exercise of public power. The draft version of the Act has already been completed. The author of the article compares some of the principles of the law of state liability as provided by the draft Act with the current court practice. For this purpose, the author analyses rulings of circuit courts and the Civil Law Chamber of the Supreme Court rendered in cases regarding damage caused by the public administration during 1997–1999. Such comparison helps to understand the implications of the planned Act. The author reaches the conclusion that, although differently from the currently valid Civil Code, the draft Act provides for liability without fault and the elements of liability include the violation of subjective rights, this does not significantly change the nature of compensation. It is much more significant that the draft Act prescribes resort to primary legal remedies. If such remedies are not used by the victim, the damage caused to him or her is not compensated for. In addition to comparing the draft Act with the court practice, the author addresses problems which have arisen in the court practice regarding compensation for damage caused by the public administration, such as issues concerning the determination of the person liable for damage, etc.