Remonstrance derives from the prerogatives of the rulers, who exercise supreme authority in the state. This is because to them, for centuries, it was possible to apply for the right of clemency, leading to a change in a decision previously taken by the ruler – or on his behalf. The genesis of the institution of remonstration indicates that it was an imperfect (legal) measure, since its consideration depended solely on the goodwill of the ruler or an authority authorized by him. From a structural point of view, remonstration can be regarded as an „asymmetrical” legal remedy. Taking advantage of it does not give the petitioner a procedural claim through which he could demand a specific procedural outcome. In the case of remonstration, the power is concentrated on the side of the entity to which it is addressed (the administrative body or the administrative court), which has liberty to decide the degree of reengagement with the case. Antagonal to remonstration are legal remedies of „symmetrical” construction (appeals), which (in terms of quantity) are by far the dominant ones. The best example reprezents formalized remedy which is available against a first-instance decision, with the filing of which, in two-instance proceedings, there is an obligation to consider the case on the merits, since the beneficiary of this remedy has a legal claim to demand from the administrative body a certain procedural result. Undoubtedly, the use of remonstration promotes the efficiency and simplification of administrative proceedings, since the inclusion of remonstration makes it possible to quickly and efficiently remove the indicated deficiency. This, in turn, reduces the cost of the proceedings, since obtaining a resolution by the interested party in this way – which takes into account the applicant's request – makes it most often unnecessary to continue the proceedings through an appeal or administrative court procedure.