Preliminary Questions Before the CJEU. Why It's Worth Suspending Work on Landscape Resolutions Until the Judgment?

On June 2, 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) referred preliminary questions concerning landscape resolutions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This is an important moment – the CJEU's answer may affect not only the resolution of a specific case but also the way landscape resolutions are created and applied throughout Poland.

The questions referred by the NSA concern the compliance of solutions adopted in landscape resolutions with European Union law, particularly the differentiation of rules for the placement of advertising media depending on whether they are located on public or private properties.

It is precisely the CJEU's answer that may determine the future of many existing and proposed landscape resolutions. If the Court finds that some currently applied solutions are inconsistent with European Union law, local governments may be forced to re-examine the adopted regulations. Therefore, it is worth knowing what preliminary questions are and what significance the future CJEU judgment may have.

What are preliminary questions?

Preliminary questions are a mechanism that allows national courts to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for clarification on how to interpret provisions of European Union law.

A court may use this mechanism when the resolution of a specific case depends on the correct interpretation of EU law.

It is worth emphasizing that the CJEU does not decide the dispute itself. It does not assess whether a specific landscape resolution complies with the law, nor does it issue a judgment instead of a Polish court. It only answers questions regarding the interpretation of EU law. Only after receiving this answer will the Supreme Administrative Court issue a judgment in the case.

How long will the proceedings take?

Preliminary proceedings before the CJEU usually last from 17 to 24 months, although in more complex cases, it may take even longer.

This means that answers to the questions posed by the NSA can be expected between the end of 2027 and mid-2028. However, it should be remembered that these are only approximate deadlines.

Will the CJEU judgment only matter for one case?

Formally, the CJEU judgment primarily binds the court that referred the preliminary questions. In practice, however, its significance is much broader.

The interpretation of law presented by the Court will serve as guidance for all national courts hearing similar cases. This means that if the CJEU finds a specific application of provisions to be inconsistent with European Union law, this position will also be relevant when assessing other landscape resolutions.

Will the judgment also affect existing resolutions?

Yes – and this is one of the most important consequences of proceedings before the CJEU.

Preliminary rulings generally have retroactive effect. This means that the Court clarifies how EU law provisions should be understood from the moment they entered into force, not just from the date of the judgment.

In practice, this may mean the possibility of re-evaluating the legality of those landscape resolutions that were adopted before the ruling was issued.

Significantly, a CJEU judgment does not automatically repeal landscape resolutions. However, it can define how administrative courts assess them, and thus influence the fate of many existing and proposed regulations.

Will it be possible to reopen concluded cases?

Yes – in certain cases, it is possible.

This was also confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in a resolution of seven judges on October 16, 2017 (I FPS 1/17), indicating that a CJEU judgment issued in preliminary proceedings may serve as a basis for reopening administrative court proceedings if an earlier ruling was based on an erroneous interpretation of European Union law.

If the CJEU's position proves to be different from the interpretation previously adopted, it may open the way for re-examining cases concluded by final judgments, in which courts decided the same legal issue.

A CJEU judgment may also open the way for claiming damages from a municipality related to the issuance of a local law inconsistent with the interpretation of European Union law.

Is it worth waiting?

In our opinion, it is.

Preparing a landscape resolution is a long-term process. It requires analysis, public consultations, agreements, and the commitment of significant public funds. If, in a dozen or so months, it turns out that some of the currently applied solutions need to be changed due to the CJEU's position, many local governments may face the need to repeat the entire procedure.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to suspend work on new resolutions until the Court issues its judgment. This will allow for the creation of regulations consistent with the interpretation of EU law, reduce the risk of costly changes, and ensure greater legal certainty for both local governments and entrepreneurs.

We also invite you to read other texts on this topic:

Landscape resolutions again before the Tribunal – this time European - Law for Local Government

CJEU to examine landscape ordinances. Supreme Administrative Court questions exceptions.