Property owners whose land hosts decades-old utility infrastructure are gaining stronger arguments in disputes with operators, with recent court rulings awarding substantial compensation amounts. <\/p>\n
Property owners, through whose land power lines, gas pipelines, or other transmission devices have run for decades, are gaining stronger arguments in disputes with operators. In one case, the remuneration for establishing a transmission easement amounted to 335,237 PLN, while in another, an owner was awarded over 180,000 PLN. However, this does not mean that every person with a pole on their plot will automatically receive a similar amount. Documents, the history of the property, and the scope of the actual restriction on ownership rights are crucial.<\/p>\n
The problem primarily concerns infrastructure built many decades ago. Electric power lines, poles, gas pipelines, and other devices were constructed on private land, and the method of legally regulating the use of the property did not always correspond to today’s standards. The situation of installations built during the Polish People’s Republic (PRL) is particularly complicated.<\/p>\n
The transmission easement itself was introduced into the Civil Code only on August 3, 2008. Regulations currently allow the entrepreneur using transmission devices and the property owner to lead to the formal establishment of such a right. If the entrepreneur refuses to conclude an appropriate agreement, the owner may demand the establishment of an easement for appropriate remuneration.<\/p>\n
Moreover, this is not solely about the area located directly beneath the pole. The power line or gas pipeline can affect the development potential of a much larger part of the property. Significant factors include the route of the installation, the area of the technological belt, building possibilities, the entrepreneur’s access to the devices, the designation of the plot, and limitations resulting from the presence of the infrastructure.<\/p>\n
A significant point of contention has become the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2025, case file P 10\/16. The Tribunal challenged the interpretation of Article 292 in connection with Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allowed a transmission enterprise or the State Treasury to acquire, through adverse possession (zasiedzenie), a land easement corresponding in content to a transmission easement before the introduction of the latter into law.<\/p>\n
The case has enormous practical importance because the allegation of adverse possession was for years one of the primary arguments of transmission companies. The operator could claim that the land had been used for so long that the owner could no longer demand the paid establishment of an appropriate right.<\/p>\n
However, the legal situation is not as straightforward as the ruling itself might suggest. The P 10\/16 decision has not yet been published in the Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw), which triggers a dispute regarding its formal effectiveness. Jurisprudence has featured stances indicating that the lack of publication prevents attributing to it the effect of loss of validity by the challenged norm.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, this has not stopped changes in court practice. Some adjudicating panels refer directly to the constitutional protection of property. As \u201cRzeczpospolita\u201d points out, the Regional Court in Warszawa-Praga reached conclusions favorable to owners in two cases, relying on Articles 21 and 64 of the Constitution, without the need to adopt the TK ruling itself as the basis for the decision.<\/p>\n
One of this year’s most important resolutions is the Supreme Court decision of March 19, 2026, case file II CSKP 1045\/24. The case concerned agricultural properties featuring overhead power lines.<\/p>\n
The initial ruling was issued earlier by the District Court in Ropczyce. On May 23, 2022, the court established a transmission easement and awarded 335,237 PLN in remuneration. The Regional Court in Rzesz\u00f3w dismissed the enterprise’s appeal on April 5, 2023. Subsequently, the case reached the Supreme Court, which dismissed the company’s cassation appeal on March 19, 2026.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the amount of 335,237 PLN was not compensation determined for the first time by the Supreme Court. It was awarded earlier by the district court, and subsequent rulings led to maintaining a favorable outcome for the owner. This is an important distinction compared to some media reports presenting the amount as a benefit directly \u201cgranted by the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p>\n
Another example is the final decision of the Regional Court in Rzesz\u00f3w dated March 17, 2026, case file V Ca 1043\/24. In this case, the owner was awarded over 180,000 PLN in one-time remuneration for establishing a transmission easement.<\/p>\n
The manner in which the enterprise’s argumentation was treated was also significant. The court did not take into account the raised objection of adverse possession. The case became one of the examples showing how, after December 2025, the approach of some courts to the long-term use of other people’s properties by transmission enterprises is changing.<\/p>\n
This does not yet mean the existence of a completely uniform judicial line. Individual proceedings may differ regarding the history of land ownership, the construction date of devices, documents held by the operator, the existence of past administrative decisions, and the course of earlier proceedings.<\/p>\n
First and foremost, it matters whether the enterprise holds a legal title to use the property. This may include an agreement, an established easement, or an appropriate administrative decision. The mere fact that a pole or line has stood on a plot for decades does not automatically determine that the owner will receive money.<\/p>\n
The owner should primarily establish when the infrastructure was built, who owned the property at that time, whether an administrative decision enabling the occupation of the land was issued, and whether an easement was entered in the land and mortgage register. The manner in which properties were acquired by subsequent owners and previous adverse possession proceedings may also matter.<\/p>\n
If the entrepreneur refuses to conclude an agreement, and the easement is necessary to use the devices, Article 305\u00b2 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides the owner with a basis to demand appropriate remuneration in exchange for establishing a transmission easement.<\/p>\n
A separate category may comprise claims related to prior uncontracted use of the property. However, one should not automatically assume the information sometimes appearing about the possibility of demanding payment \u201cfor 10 years back.\u201d The current general rule of the Civil Code provides for a six-year limitation period, while its application to a specific claim depends on the circumstances of the case, the moment it became due, and transitional provisions.<\/p>\n
Judgments at the level of 180,000 or 335,000 PLN do not create any official price list. The owner of a small plot where a pole causes minor restrictions may find themselves in a completely different situation than the owner of a sprawling property crossed by multiple lines.<\/p>\n
When determining the amount of remuneration, the primary factors considered are the value of the land, the area covered by the easement, the scope of interference with ownership rights, the destination of the property, and limitations on its use. Agricultural land may be evaluated differently than land designated for residential construction or business activity.<\/p>\n
In practice, the opinion of a property appraiser plays an important role. It should account not only for the physical location of the device but also for the actual scope of property use by the enterprise and the impact of the infrastructure on the owner’s capabilities.<\/p>\n
The changing legal environment also affects the actions of transmission enterprises. According to \u201cRzeczpospolita,\u201d operators are increasingly presenting proposals for the amicable settlement of the legal status of properties.<\/p>\n
Concluding a settlement can end a multi-year and costly dispute, but the owner should thoroughly verify its terms. It is particularly essential to determine the scope of the established easement, the offered remuneration, and whether signing the document means waiving other claims.<\/p>\n
The amount proposed by the operator may differ from the value determined based on independent valuation. The very examples of cases ending in remuneration exceeding 180,000 and 335,000 PLN show that for properties heavily burdened with infrastructure, the differences can be significant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Property owners whose land hosts decades-old utility infrastructure are gaining stronger arguments in disputes with operators, with recent court rulings awarding substantial compensation amounts. Stronger Arguments for Property Owners Property owners, through whose land power lines, gas pipelines, or other transmission devices have run for decades, are gaining stronger arguments in disputes with operators. In […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22650,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"wpai_generated_summary":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics-and-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22649\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22650"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bizonews.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}