This paper presents the most important changes in the field of universal protection of trees and shrubs in Poland that were made in 2017 and their consequences, especially the problem of removing trees from real property belonging to natural persons for purposes not related to economic activity and the new institutions introduced in June 2017.

The commented provisions specify the mechanisms of creation and content of mining usufruct. The latter can be established only with reference to the space covered by the mining property (inside the earth’s crust), and especially mineral deposits existing within its borders. It is created by way of a contract that specifies the duration of this right and the remuneration for its establishment. It is strongly associated with the (mining) license; the contract causes the legal effect specified in it only if a license has been granted and expires with the loss of its validity. In specific situations (provided by the law) the enterpreneur may demand the establishing of the mining usufruct. In other situations establishment of mining usufruct may be preceded by a tender. The content of the said right is the exclusive right to use the designated space, for (respectively) searching for (exploring) mineral deposits, their mining, underground storage of waste, underground storage of carbon dioxide and some other types of use of the subject of mining property. In situations not regulated by the GMA, the lease requirements apply, mutatis mutandis.

This article aims to bring the issue related to compliance control in two area conservation forms: the national park and nature reserve. This study draws attention to the differences occurring not so much in the protection regime resulting from art. 15 of the Nature Conservation Act, because these are insignificant, and from control just. In addition, not only problematic issues in the scope of the discussed matter were noticed, but also de lege ferenda conclusions were formulated.

This study focuses on the legal consequences of the amendment to the Forest Act made by the Act of 16 December 2016 amending the Nature Conservation Act and the Forest Act. Within the scope of interest remains introduced by the act amending Article 14b in the context of protection for nature reserves.

According to art. 34 point 8 and art. 389 point 2 of the Act of 20 July 2017 Water Law extraction of stone, gravel, sand and other materials from surface waters is a special use of waters which requires a water law permit. However, art. 21 item 1 point 2 of Act of 9 June 2011 Geological and Mining Law statutes that an activity in the scope of exploiting minerals from deposit can be executed after granting of concession. In a consequence legal doctrine and judicature claim that someone who extracts minerals from surface waters should obtain both water law permit and concession. The paper indicates negative effects of such double regulation and presents conception of distinction between subjects of these two Acts in aforementioned range.

The text contains considerations regarding liability for damage caused by geological works that do not require concessions. The author shows the problems associated with its bearing on the basis of Geological and Mining Law, occurring due to the fact that in the case of such works, the set of facilities does not always have the status of a mining plant, and the actions taken are not understood as its movement conducted by the entrepreneur. In particular, the procedure used by the legislator raises objections in the form of introducing a series of referrals. They are intended to allow for wider application of the rules regarding damage caused by mining plant operations, which, however, was not carried out in a clear manner. The doubts of linguistic nature appearing at the same time, lead to the use of systematic and historical interpretation in order to eliminate them.