[1. Achterberg, Norbert. Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, 1986.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Battini, Stefano. “Globalisation and Extraterritorial Regulation: An Unexceptional Exception”: 61–80. In: Gordon Anthony, Jean-Bernard Auby, John Morison, and Tom Zwart, eds. Values in Global Administrative Law. Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Bauer, Hartmut. Die Bundestreue. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Dogmatik des Bundesstaatsrechts und zur Rechtsverhältnislehre. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Bull, Hans P., and Veith Mehde. Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht mit Verwaltungslehre. Heidelberg, München, Landsberg, Frechen, Hamburg: C.F. Müller, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Burmeister, Joachim. Vertrauensschutz im Prozeβrecht. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter 1979.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Cassese, Sabino. Istituzioni di diritto amministrativo. Milano: Giuffré Editore, 2004.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Castillo Blanco, Fernando. Protección de Confianza en el Derecho Administrativo. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Chapus, René. Droit administratif général, Tome 1. Paris: Montchrestien, 2001.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Díez Sastre, Silvia, and Kevin Weyand. “Spanien”: 181–369. In: Jens-Peter Schneider, Hans-Werner Rengeling, Oliver Dörr, and Albrecht Weber, eds. Verwaltungsrecht in Europa. Band 1. England und Wales, Spanien, Niederlande. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Endicott, Thomas. Administrative Law. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. García de Enterría, Eduardo. “El principio de protección de la confianza legítima como supuesto título justificatiovo de la responsabilidad patrimonial del Estado legislador.” Revista de Administración Pública No. 159 (2002): 173–180.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Gaudemet, Yves. Traité de droit administratif. Tome I. Paris: L.G.D.J., 2001.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Gächter, Thomas. Rechtsmissbrauch im öffentlichen Rechts. Zürich/Basel/Genf: Schulthess, 2005.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Häfelin, Ulrich, and Georg Müller. Grundriss des Allgemeinen Verwaltungsrechts. Zürich: Schulthess, 1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Hufen, Friedhelm. Verwaltungsprozessrecht. 9th ed. München: C.H. Beck 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Kopp, Ferdinand O., and Ulrich Ramsauer. Verwaltungsverfahrensgezetz. 13th ed. München: C. H. Beck 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Kaiser, Anna-Bettina. “Bauordnungsrecht”: 208–301. In: Dirk Ehlers, Michael Fehling, and Hermann Pünder, eds. Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht, Band 2, Planungs-, Bau- und Straβenrecht, Umweltrecht, Gesundheitsrecht, Medien- und Informationsrecht. 3th ed. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Knödler, Christoph. Miβbrauch von Rechten, selbstwidersprüchliches Verhalten und Verwirkung im öffentlichen Recht. Herbolzheim: Centaurus Verlag, 2000.10.1007/978-3-658-14541-5]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Küch, Florian. Vertrauensschutz durch Staatshaftungsrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Lemańska, Joanna. Uzasadnione oczekiwania w perspektywie prawa krajowego i regulacji europejskich. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Lewis, Clive. Judicial Remedies in Public Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2015.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Maurer, Hartmut. Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. München: C.H. Beck, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Pagone, Gaetano (Tony). “Estoppel in Public Law: Theory, Fact and Fiction.” University of New South Wales Law Journal Vol. 7, No. 2 (1984): 267–284.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Paul, Joel R. “Comity in International Law.” Harvard International Law Review Vol. 32, No 1 (1991): 1–44.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Sachs, Michael. “§ 53 Hemmung der Verjährung durch Verwaltungakt”; in: Paul Stelkens, Heinz J. Bonk, and Michael Sachs, eds., Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz. Kommentar, 7th ed. München: C.H. Beck, 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Schmidt-Preuβ, Michael. Kollidierende Privatinteressen im Verwaltungsrecht (Das subjektive öffentliche Recht im multipolaren Verwaltungsrechtsverhältniss). Berlin, 1992.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Schmitt, Karl H. Treu und Glauben im Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1935.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Schønberg, Soeren J. Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299479.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Seerden, Rene, and Fritz Stroink. “Administrative law in the Netherlands”: 145–192. In: Rene Seerden and Fritz Stroink, Administrative law of the European Union, its member states and the United States: a comparative analysis. Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2002.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Seinfeld, Gil. “Reflections on Comity in the Law of American Federalism.” Notre Dame Law Rev. 90, No. 3 (2015): 1309–1343.10.2139/ssrn.2592495]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Stelkens, Ulrich. “§ 41 Bekanntgabe des Verwaltungsaktes”; in: Paul Stelkens, Heinz J. Bonk, and Michael Sachs, eds., Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz. Kommentar, 7th ed. (München: C.H. Beck, 2008)]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Stern, Klaus. Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Band I. München: C.H. Beck, 1984]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Stich, Rudolf. “Die Verwirkung im Verwaltungsrecht.” DVBl (1959): 234–239.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Thomas, Robert. Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality in Administrative Law. Oxford-Portland: Hart Publishing, 2000.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Waline, Jean. Droit administrative. Paris: Dalloz, 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[36. de Wall, Heinrich. Die Anwendbarkeit privatrechtlicher Vorschriften im Verwaltungsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Wolff, Hans J., Otto Bachof, and Rolf Stober. Verwaltungsrecht I. München: C.H. Beck, 1994.]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Zimmermann, Jan, Aksjomaty prawa administracyjnego. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[1. Act of June 30, 2000, on Industrial Property. [2017] Dziennik Ustaw, p. 776.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht). 8 December 1965 (BVerwGE 23, 25).]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Federal Administrative Court. 10 August 2000 (NVwZ 2001, 206).]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Federal Administrative Court. 20 June 1967 (BVerwGE 27, 215).]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Federal Administrative Court. 23 Mai 1975 (BVerwGE 48, 247).]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Federal Administrative Court. 25 January 1974 (BVerwGE 44, 294).]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Federal Administrative Court. 27 April 2006 (3 C 23.05) // www.bverwg.de.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Federal Administrative Court. 29 Mai 1980 (BVerwGE 60, 208).]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). 26 January 1972 (BVerfGE 32, 305).]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Good Administration. Adopted on 20 June 2007 // rm.coe.int/16807096b9.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 22 September 1983 (SA/Wr 367/83, “Orzecznictwo Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego – ONSA” 1983/2/75).]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Supreme Administrative Court. 13 July 2004 (GSK 246/04) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Supreme Administrative Court. 14 December 1993 (SA/Po 280/93, “Monitor Podatkowy” 1994/10, p. 315).]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Supreme Administrative Court. 15 December 1987 (I SA 177/87, ONSA 1987/2/88).10.1007/BF02980527]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Supreme Administrative Court. 15 December 1998 (I SA 649/98, LEX no 45696).]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Supreme Administrative Court. 17 July 2003 (II SA 1165/02) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Supreme Administrative Court. 18 Mai 2011 (I OSK 124/11) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Supreme Administrative Court. 20 March 2003 (II SA/Po 1053/01) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Supreme Administrative Court. 20 November 2003 (IV SA 4138/01) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Supreme Administrative Court. 25 September 2009 (I OSK 1403/08) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Supreme Administrative Court. 29 Mai 2012 r. (II GSK 519/11) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Supreme Administrative Court. 5 March 2008 (II OSK 113/07) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Supreme Administrative Court. 9 July 1998 (I SA 2224/97, Legal Information System LEX no 44515).]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Supreme Administrative Court. 9 November 1999 (I SA/Wr 1495/97) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. Resolution of the European Parliament of 6 September 2001; Decision on Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, [2011] OJ C 285/3.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG, Administrative Procedure Act) of May 25, 1976. [2003] Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 102.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Woivodship Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) of Gliwice. 13 October 2004 (II SA/Ka 2188/02) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Woivodship Administrative Court of Lodz. 16 October 2014 (III SA/Łd 692/14) //orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Woivodship Administrative Court of Lublin. 14 February 2013 (III SA/Lu 801/12) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Woivodship Administrative Court of Wrocław. 28 April 2004 (I SA/Wr 709/03) // orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.]Search in Google Scholar
