Reprivatization in Warsaw. The groundbreaking resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court hits claims dealers
The purchaser of claims arising from the Warsaw Decree is not entitled to the status of a party in an administrative case regarding the establishment of the right of perpetual usufruct on the basis of this decree – the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in a resolution on Monday, confirming its earlier resolution of 2024.
In a famous resolution of April 2024 – initiated by questions from the Commissioner for Human Rights – the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the purchaser of decree claims has no rights in reprivatization matters. Then, the Supreme Administrative Court comprehensively addressed the problem of administrative legal consequences of trade in decree claims. That resolution was considered a breakthrough in reprivatization cases involving the so-called claims peddlers.
However, more than a year later, the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, based on one of the cases, asked the Supreme Administrative Court a similar question about this problem. In its justification, the Provincial Administrative Court asked, among others: “to reconsider the problem of determining the parties in administrative proceedings to establish the rights to Warsaw real estate provided for in Article 7 of the decree (…).”
In the justification, he indicated several arguments that could – in his opinion – support treating the purchaser of the decree receivable as a party to such administrative proceedings, alongside the former owner and his heirs. The Provincial Administrative Court pointed, for example, to the issue that “the receivable is of a property nature, not a personal nature,” and that the application of the interpretation of the 2024 Supreme Administrative Court resolution “violates the property protection standards established in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Paris Protocol to the Rome Convention.”
The Supreme Administrative Court did not share these arguments on Monday. – The decree states that legal successors may participate in the proceedings. And who are these legal successors? These are undoubtedly the heirs, said judge Arkadiusz Despot-Mładanowicz in the oral justification of Monday's resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court, which was a response to the Provincial Administrative Court's question.
– Of course, we are aware and have knowledge that civil law claims have been accepted for decades. But never uncritically. Throughout these decades, there have always been doubtful voices, although perhaps unobtrusive, but if you read carefully, there were doubts – noted Judge Despot-Mładanowicz.
As he emphasized, a legal interest in public law cannot be established based on a civil law contract. – It is difficult to talk about the protection of potential ownership rights, i.e. those that may be transferred as a result of concluding a civil contract – added the judge.
Thus, on Monday, the Supreme Administrative Court adopted a resolution similar to the resolution of April 2024, stating that the purchaser of claims arising from the Warsaw Decree “is not entitled to the status of a party within the meaning of (…) the Code of Administrative Procedure in the case of establishing the right of perpetual usufruct on the basis of the provisions of the decree.”
The Ombudsman, who also took a position on this matter, pointed out that the process conducted by the Provincial Administrative Court, in which the court asked the question, has nothing to do with the so-called the practice of claims trading. “On the contrary, it concerns a person who, in 1949, bought a private building on the land covered by the decree, and now his heir is participating in the proceedings. Such cases should be resolved individually, respecting the rights of purchasers of property rights to real estate,” wrote the Ombudsman.
However, as Judge Despot-Mładanowicz pointed out, “it is not possible to separate the good contractors from the bad ones, there is no such provision.” – The legislator would have to come up with a norm that would allow for this type of interpretation in special situations – he said.
The entire issue resolved in these resolutions arose after several high-profile judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court from 2022, in which the court found that the acquisition of reprivatization claims does not necessarily result in the rights of such a buyer in the administrative procedure. The Supreme Administrative Court then changed the judgments of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, in which the Provincial Administrative Court had previously overturned the decisions of the verification committee for Warsaw reprivatization. The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the Provincial Administrative Court's judgments and dismissed the complaints against the commission's decisions.
The Supreme Administrative Court then assessed that “the effects of a civil law transaction do not always result in the creation of subjective rights in the sphere of administrative law.” “This only happens when the legislator has clearly regulated it,” the Supreme Administrative Court emphasized in 2022.
After those judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, from 2022, the verification commission issued a number of judgments declaring the reprivatization decisions of the President of Warsaw from the last dozen or so years invalid. All these commission rulings had similar justifications – they referred to the fact that the beneficiaries of these decisions were persons who acquired rights and claims to real estate through civil law contracts.
In its justification, the Supreme Administrative Court also referred on Monday to the request of one of the parties that the resolution should include a provision that it would only apply “in the future”. – And which resolution works differently than not for the future – answered judge Despot-Mładanowicz.
Marcin Jabłoński (PAP)
my/par/
