Acta Iuris Stetinensis

The aim of this study is to shed light on legal issues of proceedings in the case of granting cash benefits under social assistance in the aspect of one of the negative obligatory premises, i.e. lack of consent for a family interview (Article 107(4a) of the Social Assistance Act). This study is part two of an article whose part one focused on selected optional negative premises. The interview referred to above, carried out in particular with persons (families) applying for social assistance support, is intended to detail comprehensively the applicant’s situation, taking into account all circumstances of the case that may affect the right to a specific cash benefit. Given this, a refusal to take part in such interview, and thus making it impossible to establish facts relating to the applicant’s situation, forces a refusal to grant a cash benefit. This article intends, inter alia, to approximate the understanding of the meaning of the phrase “lack of consent”, which belongs to the category of undefined concepts. The article attempts to answer the question of whether relevant legal measures stipulated in the Social Assistance Act are sufficiently precise and clearly formulated to facilitate and, as a result, enable social assistance authorities to make decisions on the granting of cash benefits from social assistance, and if not, whether judicial decisions of administrative courts may be helpful here. This study is based on an analysis of the provisions of the Social Assistance Act, views of legal scholars and commentators and judicial decisions of administrative courts. The provisions of the quoted legal act – given the premise in question – do not seem to be formulated clearly and precisely enough (similar to what is the case of optional negative premises) to facilitate social assistance bodies in issuing decisions in cases of granting cash benefits from social assistance. This is due to the legislator’s failure to specify the phrase cited. For purely objective reasons, it does not seem entirely possible, which does not change the fact that in practice it leads to many doubts in interpretation. Some help in determining its meaning may be provided by judicial decisions of administrative courts.