Transformacje Prawa Prywatnego

Zasiedzenie nieruchomości rolnej i jego ograniczenia na tle wprowadzenia, obowiązywania i derogacji art. 172 § 3 kodeksu cywilnego.

Patryk Bender — 2025-06-30

Dnia 30 kwietnia 2016 roku wprowadzono istotne ograniczenia w obrocie nieruchomościami rolnymi w Polsce. Ograniczenia nie ograniczyły się jedynie do obrotu umownego, ale dotknęły także innych niż kontraktowe sposobów nabywania gruntów rolnych. Przyjęto wówczas art. 172 § 3 k.c., wskazujący, że nieruchomości rolne (w rozumieniu ustawy o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego) w drodze zasiedzenia może nabywać wyłącznie rolnik indywidualny w rozumieniu wspomnianej ustawy. Przywołany przepis uchylono z dniem 5 października 2023 roku. Powyższe opracowanie porusza podstawowe zagadnienia związane z wprowadzaną i następnie uchyloną regulacją, zarówno w kontekście zagadnień intertemporalnych, jak i prezentując rozważane kwestie na tle ogólnych unormowań ustawy o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego.

Dopuszczalność zasiedzenia służebności gruntowej w perspektywie porównawczej

Piotr Franczak — 2025-06-30

The aim of the article is to present rules on acquisitive prescription of land easements in a comparative perspective. The article discusses the law of civil and common law jurisdictions (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, France, Italy, Spain, England, Australia, Canada, the United States, and Rome of the classical period). It includes a brief review of the law of adverse possession of land in order to offer some substantive depth.

An observation underlying the analysis is that there is a relatively close correlation between the strength of the land registration system adopted in a jurisdiction and the admissibility of land and easement prescription in that jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with strong registration systems (Germany, Torrens jurisdictions) are less likely than jurisdictions with weak registration systems (France, Italy, the United States) to admit prescription, although this is not an absolute rule (see: England).

Although some legal systems admit acquisitive prescription of easements and others do not, there is a common core of understanding among most of them regarding what prescription is and how it should operate, if it is to be allowed. This common core can be traced to the Roman rule that land use resulting in prescription must be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Translated into modern language, the use needs to be open and visible, and should lead to the acquisition of the easement only where the landowner has an appropriate opportunity to identify and interrupt the use. Certain Latin European jurisdictions have developed additional conditions for the prescription of easements, namely requirements of continuity (met when no human action is needed for the exercise of the easement) and disclosure of the easement by specific installations. It is arguable that this leads to arbitrary results and excessive curtailment of prescription.

The Polish land registration system is a compromise between strong and weak registration systems. It is suggested that the prescription of easements be retained in Poland, as it serves useful social purposes. A general requirement of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario should be a guiding principle in Polish law regarding easement prescription, and more detailed requirements, particularly those concerning installations disclosing the use, should be employed cautiously, as they may unduly restrict prescription and produce arbitrary results.

Konstrukcja łańcucha wartości w dyrektywie o odpowiedzialności za produkty wadliwe porównanie dyrektywy 85/374/EWG i dyrektywy 2024/2853

Karol Kopczyński — 2025-06-30

The 20th century has been characterised by the progressive fragmentation of previously centralised production centres into value chains. This new form of production has necessitated, and continues to necessitate, updates to legislation and existing legal constructs, which have not kept pace with changing economic circumstances. One response to this phenomenon has been the EU directive on liability for defective products, which has introduced a new regime of tort liability. The defective product liability regime allows injured persons to claim compensation for damage caused by a defective product not only from the direct seller with whom they have contracted but also from other participants in the value chain. Due to changes in the organisation of production and the increasing importance of distribution through digital tools, the European Commission decided to propose a new draft directive to replace the previous 1985 directive. Following the legislative process, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a common text of the new directive, which was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 18 November 2024, thereby repealing the previous directive. The aim of this article is to analyse the construction of the value chain as presented in both the previous and the newly adopted directives, using progressive digitalisation as a criterion for analysis. Special attention is devoted to those actors in the value chain who appear in the new directive but were not included in the scope of the previous directive.

Fundacja rodzinna ustanawiana w testamencie

Kamil Wielgus — 2025-06-30

The family foundation represents a major transformation of Polish inheritance law. It is a far-reaching instrument of succession planning, enabling the transfer of assets for many generations ahead. The family foundation is presented as the functional equivalent of the institution of a trust widely used in common law systems. It is even argued that if a trust mortis causa was established in a will (made under foreign law), and the effects of the will were evaluated from the perspective of Polish law (Article 21 of Regulation 650/2012), such a trust could be considered a declaration of the establishment of a family foundation (Article 21(1) of the Family Foundations Act). At the same time, Polish inheritance law is averse to far-reaching trusts. This is manifested in the prohibitions and restrictions provided, among others, in Article 962, Article 964, and Article 981(3) of the Civil Code. An internal inconsistency arises in this regard, since the fundamental inadmissibility of trusteeship mortis causa in the general law of succession is overridden by the family foundation, which allows for full and essentially unlimited trusteeship in succession after the death of its founder. This is particularly evident when one considers the position of other European legal systems, which, instead, seek to balance these mortis causa fiduciary institutions.

The purpose of this text is to present the most important legal problems associated with the formation of a family foundation established by a last will (testament), which arise from the interpretation of the law.