The aim of this study is to present doubts related to the new legal instruments introduced by the Act of 20 July 2018 amending the Act on Waste and some other acts, which entered into force on September 5, 2018. The Amendment to the Act on Waste, adopted at the time when fires of installations for waste management and the so-called wild dumps were sweeping through Poland in the period June — July 2018, was supposed to be an antidote to the problems of excessive accumulation of waste in waste collection areas and in places not provided for such a purpose. Not exactly precise redaction of the provisions led to a situation in which, after several months from the date when the amendment came into force, there are still many questions requiring deeper analysis or amendment of the amended provisions. The main changes concern the shortening of the waste storage period, the introduction of mandatory video monitoring of storage and waste storage, change of the competent authority for issuing permits for collecting and processing waste, limiting the list of legal titles to real properties on which waste management can be carried out, introduction of competences to the Waste Act granted to the city (poviat) commander of the State Fire Service at the stage of applying for a permit and at the stage of control, introducing the need to lodge security for claims or new grounds for refusal of related permits, including the punishment of partners and members of company bodies. Due to the fact that the intertemporal regulations require entrepreneurs conducting economicactivity in the waste management sector to submit applications for the change of existing permits — under pain of their expiry — within 12 months from the date of the entry into force of the amendment to the Waste Act (i.e. until 5 September 2019), it seems necessary to urgently focus on this topic.

The cooperation of the Inspection of Environmental Protection with other authorities and services is the subject of the article. The latest amendments to the Act on the Inspection of Environmental Protection of 20 July 2018 were taken into account. It was pointed out that in order to be able to carry out its tasks, the Inspectorate for Environmental Protection was obliged to cooperate with other authorities. It was indicated what the scope of this cooperation is and what it should include. The final remarks pointed out that the scope designated by the legislator is not sufficient for efficient cooperation. A de lege ferenda solution was also proposed.

This study summarizes the results of research conducted during the implementation of the research project "Sustainable development as a factor determining the legal basis for management of geological resources of the environment" which was based on the agreement No. DEC-2012/05 / B / HS5 / 00632 concluded with the National Science Centre with seat in Krakow. The full results of the research were included in two monographs. The first one is "Sustainable development as a factor determining the legal basis of management of geological resources of the environment", edited by G. Dobrowolski, Katowice 2016. The second one is "Management of geological resources of the environment in the light of the principle of sustainable development. Legal issues, Publisher of the University of Silesia, Katowice 2018, edited by G. Dobrowolski

The article deals with the problem of waste management and related to this, waste logistics. The main sources of waste generation are presented. The waste logistics system is also defined and discussed, where its significant impact on waste management was emphasized. What is an important part of the article are examples of waste logistics improvements, thanks to which time and money can be saved. The main sources of waste generation are also presented here. The conclusion is that the deliberate and effective application of the waste logistic system and the introduction of possible improvements to it are aimed at systematizing certain specific activities in order to process waste as quickly and efficiently as possible

The Art. 18 of the Geological and Mining Act which is being commented on determines the premises and the mode of obtaining by the entrepreneur the right to use other people’s land necessary to conduct activities regulated by the Act. Such a right is established in return for remuneration, but it cannot include the rights to gain profits from the property. In some circumstances the landowner may demand from the entrepreneur to buy out the real estate. In turn, Art. 19 grants an entrepreneur who conducts certain types of licensed activities (including mining of hydrocarbons, hard coal, lignite) the right to demand the buyout of the real estate necessary for such a purpose. In both situations, disputes are subject to resolution by common courts. However, some other solutions in this respect are provided for in regulations on expropriation of real estate. Next, pursuant to Art. 20 the use of mine water for the needs of the mining plant is free of charge

What is the subject of the article is the analysis of a legal regulation contained in art. 4 of the Act of 27 April 2001 — Environmental Protection Law. This regulation applies to general rules of utilizing the environment. It follows from the considerations that the law is affected by serious shortcomings. It appears to be incomplete and without a clearer idea. The function and relation to specific regulations concerning the utilization of the environment are also vague.

The main aim of this paper is to present doubts connected with the date for the reports from the Act of 13th September 1996 on Maintaining cleanliness and order in municipalities and the issue of the “null reports”. Cases concerning administrative monetary penalties for delayed reports prepared by the entities conducting activity on the basis of the Act on Maintaining cleanliness and order in municipalities, were analyzed by the administrative courts multiple times. Imprecise redaction of some articles, lack of some regulations untill a certain moment, the absence thereof in the literature and disparity in judicature make this issue worth being considered again. Also the issue of the “null reports” is still not clear. In the first part, the author analyzes regulations in this matter, including the reporting obligations. Further, the views from the doctrine and the jurisdiction are presented. In the following part, the evaluation of present regulations is made. The last part concerns the “null reports”.