Objectives:
The aim of the study is to analyze the institution of a vote of confidence for the commune administrator.

Material and methods:
The article uses the dogmatic method. The doctrine views and jurisprudence were analyzed.

Results:
What makes the situation particularly dangerous is that the rulings of administrative courts are not always taken into account by local governments, but instead are exploited only in an opportunistic manner. Local lawmakers, when submitting their legislative initiatives, often make references to court verdicts that confirm their way of thinking, while omitting those that would contradict it.

Conclusions:
In this paper, I have presented selected judgments of administrative courts. My goal was not to provide a comprehensive presentation of the content, form, and mode of adoption of a resolution on a vote of confidence for a commune executive body in juxtaposition with the jurisprudence of administrative courts, but only to draw attention to the problem, which is important from the point of view of not only local legislators, but also supervisory bodies. This is because the problem involves an important issue: recognizing when a resolution of the commune council on a vote of confidence for the commune head (after meeting what conditions as to content, form, and procedure) is a legal act and when this act is illegal (in the opinion of the supervisory authority or an administrative court). This problem should not be ignored any longer. As we can easily see from the examples of judgments of administrative courts cited above, resolutions of the same content are qualified as either legal or illegal acts.