Key facts of the case:
The petitioner sought protection against failure to act. In terms of his 1st instance action, he claimed that the defendant failed to act while not imposing a measure to remedy the identified shortcomings of a hunting community in his district. The Regional Administrative Court rejected the action, stating that the petitioner did not exhaust all available remedies in the proceedings before the administrative authority. The petitioner challenged the judgment before the Supreme Administrative Court. However, he did not meet all conditions applicable to a cassation complaint procedure such as the payment of a fee and the fact that he did not seek mandatory representation by a legal counsel (attorney). While the petitioner was asked to complete his complaint in order to be admissible, he expressed disagreement with the abovementioned conditions and invoked that his right to effective remedy had been violated.