Polish legal experts detail property owners’ rights regarding transmission infrastructure on their land, covering compensation, disputes, and recent rulings.
Rights When Infrastructure is Planned
A company cannot use a plot of land to build transmission infrastructure without a legal title and appropriate compensation. This typically takes the form of establishing a transmission easement, usually for a fee.
This arrangement can be formalized through an agreement between the property owner and the transmission company, often following negotiations. This creates a lasting and effective legal framework, documented through a notarial deed, detailing the scope of use (repairs, maintenance, upgrades), the route of the infrastructure on a map, and the amount of compensation.
Legal Action for Easement Establishment
If an agreement isn’t reached, legal action can be taken to claim a paid transmission easement. However, if the infrastructure doesn’t yet exist, generally only the company can initiate this claim. A property owner can only request a court-ordered easement with compensation if the infrastructure is already on their land.
Claims for Existing Infrastructure
Beyond establishing a future easement, a property owner with existing transmission infrastructure on their land, where the legal status is unresolved, can claim compensation for unauthorized use of their property. This applies to the portion of the land occupied by the infrastructure or where it restricts normal land use.
Such claims, like most financial claims, are subject to a statute of limitations. In practice, owners can claim compensation for up to six years retroactively.
The Impact of Long-Term Use (30+ Years)
If infrastructure has been on the property for over 30 years, the legal situation becomes more complex. The company may invoke the principle of adverse possession, claiming they’ve acquired a right to use the land necessary to maintain the infrastructure due to prolonged use.
Previously, this argument was often successful, with courts recognizing adverse possession. However, a Constitutional Tribunal ruling on December 2, 2025 (case file P 10/16) changed this.
The Tribunal ruled that in cases concerning periods before 2008 (before the introduction of transmission easement provisions into the Civil Code), the provisions relating to other easements should not be applied by analogy.
Previously, courts often applied provisions regarding land easements, which could be acquired through adverse possession, as the Civil Code allowed this. The Constitutional Tribunal clarified that since transmission easements weren’t directly provided for before 2008, the possibility of acquiring them through adverse possession wasn’t either. Property and limitation regulations should be interpreted strictly, and rights shouldn’t be extended by analogy.
It’s important to note that the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling hasn’t been published yet, meaning it isn’t formally binding on state authorities, including courts. Courts aren’t obligated to apply it directly until publication, but they can consider the reasoning when interpreting the Civil Code.
This means property owners with infrastructure installed over 30 years ago have a better chance of obtaining compensation for unauthorized use than before December 2, 2025. The company can still raise the adverse possession claim, but the court isn’t obligated to uphold it and may have grounds not to.
Recent Infrastructure Installations
If infrastructure was installed relatively recently, for example, in 1996 or later, and the installation wasn’t legally regulated, the property owner can still claim compensation for unauthorized use and the establishment of a paid transmission easement.
The company may attempt to defend itself with an adverse possession claim, but proving it is more difficult. They would need to demonstrate they acted in good faith, believing they had a right to use the land.
An adverse possession claim will not be effective for installations after 2006. The Civil Code stipulates 20 years for possession in good faith and 30 years for possession in bad faith. If that period hasn’t elapsed, the company can’t successfully invoke adverse possession.
A claim for compensation for unauthorized use applies only when no agreement regulating land use exists – neither with the current owner nor their legal predecessor.
Objecting to Installation or Demanding Removal
It is possible to object to the construction of transmission infrastructure on one’s property, but it’s often difficult. If parties can’t agree on easement terms, the owner can refuse to sign the company’s proposed agreement. However, the company may initiate an administrative procedure known as a “minor expropriation.” If statutory conditions are met and it’s in the public interest, property rights can be restricted with appropriate compensation.
If infrastructure already exists, the owner generally has two options: demand its removal or demand transfer of property ownership.
A claim for removal applies when someone violates property rights without completely depriving the owner of control. The goal is to restore the legal status quo and stop the violations. However, this claim is ineffective if the company has a legal title to use the land (e.g., an easement). The court also considers the public interest, such as potential disruptions for many users, when deciding such cases.
A claim for property transfer is rare, occurring when the value of the infrastructure on the land significantly exceeds the land’s value. This requires a clear disproportion between the infrastructure’s value and the property’s value.
The specific legal situation depends on the facts. For example, a prior administrative decision limiting property rights may prevent claiming compensation or establishing an easement.