Jacek Wałdoch

This article is devoted to the issue of the dissolution of the Lviv City Council and the matter considered by the Supreme Administrative Tribunal in 1929. On August 31st, 1927, the Lviv voivode dissolved the Provisional City Council, transferring power over the city to the executive body and a 32-person Adjutant Council. The decision to dissolve the Provisional City Council was widely discussed in political circles, where its legality was questioned. In this regard, the councilors of the Provisional City Council decided to lodge a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Tribunal, which considered the case two years later, in 1929. The representatives of the dissolved Provisional City Council presented a number of arguments, pointing out errors in the voivode’s decision and defective supervisory proceedings. Proxies of the dissolved Provisional City Council requested the annulment of the voivode’s decision. The verdict in the case was issued on November 28th, 1929 and concerned the formal shortcomings of the dissolution of the Provisional City Council. It was demonstrated that its content did not include information on available remedies, in breach of the rules of administrative procedure. The judgment had specific legal and political effects, while the whole case illustrates the attitude of the supervisory authority to the local government.

This study was devoted to the investigation of the case of the dissolution of the Kraków City Council in 1924 and the consequences resulting from this decision. After the death of the President of Kraków, Jan Kanty Federowicz, the supervisory authority (i.e. the voivode) decided to dissolve the City Council and appoint a government commissioner and a supervisory board. The commissioner was associated with the central government, while the members of the board mostly represented the ruling coalition. The councilors objected to this decision and appealed it to the Supreme Administrative Tribunal, which ultimately agreed with them. It was found that the voivode had issued the decision for dissolution in breach of the law. The controversial judgment was commented on by lawyers and criticized by those who contended that the Tribunal had errouneously based its decision rely on archaic legislation.