Warsaw is setting a trap for itself. Why might the landscape resolution project come back to the city like a boomerang?

On July 31, 2026, the draft landscape resolution for Warsaw was published on the Public Information Bulletin website of the Capital City of Warsaw. The document sets out the rules for the placement of advertising boards, advertising devices, small architecture objects, and fences. This marked the beginning of the procedure for adopting a local law that will have a significant impact not only on the functioning of the outdoor advertising market, but also on the exercise of property rights and the use of real estate in the capital.

However, the project has raised significant concerns from the outset. These concern not only the timing of the procedure, but above all the compatibility of some of the proposed solutions with current administrative court case law and the significance of the expected ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Clarifying these issues before the act is adopted is crucial both to ensure that the resolution complies with applicable law and to limit the risk of future disputes.

The procedure for adopting the project raises questions

Pursuant to Article 37b(2) of the Spatial Planning and Development Act, the draft landscape resolution is subject to consultation and opinion by the authorities competent in view of the scope of the proposed regulations.

This is not merely a formal requirement. The purpose of this stage is to ensure that the project is assessed by the authorities responsible for protecting the values covered by the resolution—in particular environmental and nature protection, cultural heritage protection, and monuments. Opinions and consultations have a real impact on the final shape of the project and should not be treated as a formality.

In this context, the timing of the procedure is significant. Submitting the project for consultation and opinion on July 31, 2026, means that almost the entire statutory period for the competent authorities to submit their opinions falls during the holiday period. It is difficult to consider such timing conducive to an in-depth analysis of a document of such importance for public space and the outdoor advertising market.

As a result, one of the most important stages of the landscape resolution adoption procedure takes place at a time that may hinder a detailed assessment of the proposed solutions by the authorities participating in the legislative process.

Differentiation of the situation of entrepreneurs raises concerns

One of the most important elements of the project is the way in which the situation of individual categories of advertising boards and devices is regulated.

The project provides for far-reaching restrictions on private advertising boards and devices, while leaving different solutions for media associated with municipal infrastructure.

If the purpose of the landscape resolution is to protect the landscape and organize public space, the basic criterion for differentiating the legal situation of advertising media should be their actual impact on the landscape, not the status of the owner or entity managing the infrastructure.

Such a solution raises doubts both from the point of view of the principle of equal treatment of market participants and the compatibility of the adopted restrictions with the objectives for which the legislator granted municipalities the competence to adopt landscape resolutions.

Preliminary questions to the CJEU may be of key importance

By order of June 2, 2026 (case no. II OSK 1153/25), the Supreme Administrative Court referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the compatibility with European Union law of selected solutions used in landscape resolutions.

The questions relate, among other things, to the admissibility of differentiating the situation of entrepreneurs conducting advertising activities and entities using infrastructure under the control of local government units.

The draft landscape resolution for Warsaw includes solutions relating to issues that are the subject of questions referred to the CJEU. This means that some of the proposed regulations may be assessed by the Court after the resolution enters into force.

This, in turn, creates significant risk for entrepreneurs.

The entry into force of the resolution may mean the obligation to remove or adapt legally operating advertising devices to the new requirements. If it subsequently turns out that some of these obligations were imposed on the basis of solutions incompatible with European Union law, the costs incurred will not be recoverable.

However, the consequences may also affect the city itself. Possible questioning of some solutions by the Court may mean not only the need to amend the resolution, but also lead to entrepreneurs claiming damages related to losses incurred during the period when the questioned regulations were in force.

This is therefore not merely a dispute over the interpretation of provisions. In practice, it may translate into both costs borne by entrepreneurs and the liability for damages of the local government unit.

Transitional provisions may deprive legally existing advertising devices of protection

Further significant concerns relate to the transitional provisions regulating the situation of advertising boards and devices existing before the resolution enters into force.

It is these provisions that determine the scope of protection for devices placed in accordance with the law before the new regulations came into force.

This issue was the subject of a 2026 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (case no. II OSK 264/25). The SAC held that the concept of building consent covers not only advertising devices implemented on the basis of a building permit decision or effective notification, but also those whose execution—in accordance with the provisions in force at the time of their placement—did not require either a building permit or notification.

However, the draft landscape resolution for Warsaw adopts a solution different from the interpretation presented by the Supreme Administrative Court.

Section 14(3)(1) states that building consent—with regard to advertising boards and devices—means only a final building permit decision or effective notification of the intention to carry out construction works.

In practice, this means that the project does not provide protection for advertising devices executed in accordance with the law if, at the time of their placement, the applicable provisions did not require obtaining a building permit or making a notification.

It is also worth noting the different regulation of the situation of small architecture objects and fences. In their case, the project also takes into account objects placed "in another manner consistent with the provisions in force at the time of placement."

However, no analogous solution has been provided for advertising boards and devices. This distinction may raise further questions regarding the consistency of the adopted solutions and their compatibility with the established case law.

Advertisements in underground passages exceed the scope of statutory authorization

The project also covers advertisements placed inside underground passages. Meanwhile, the Spatial Planning and Development Act does not provide grounds for including these spaces in the landscape resolution regulation.

Consequently, the inclusion of advertisements placed inside underground passages in the provisions of the resolution may be considered to exceed the limits of statutory authorization. Such a solution may in the future become the subject of administrative court review.

Summary

The need to organize the rules for placing advertisements in public space is not in doubt. However, the landscape resolution should be based on solutions consistent with the law, taking into account current administrative court case law and the risks arising from the ongoing proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

However, the draft landscape resolution for Warsaw leaves a number of important questions that—from the perspective of legal certainty—should be clarified before it is adopted.

They concern both the procedure and some of the solutions adopted in the project. In particular, they relate to the rules for differentiating the situation of market participants, transitional provisions concerning advertising devices, and the inclusion of advertisements placed in underground passages in the regulation.

Clarifying these issues is in the interest of all participants in the process—both entrepreneurs operating in the outdoor advertising market and the city itself. It will limit the risk of years of litigation and ensure greater stability of the adopted regulations.

Otherwise, the adoption of provisions burdened with significant legal doubts may lead not only to the need for their subsequent amendment, but also to liability for damages related to their application.

If it turns out that some obligations were imposed on the basis of solutions contrary to European Union law or in conflict with established administrative court case law, the consequences will be felt not only by entrepreneurs, but also by the city itself.

And that is precisely why the draft landscape resolution for Warsaw requires particularly thorough analysis today. The purpose of the procedure should not be merely to adopt new provisions, but above all to create regulations that are durable, consistent, and resistant to subsequent challenge by the courts.

Otherwise, the landscape resolution may indeed come back to Warsaw like a boomerang.