Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza państwa
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
W niniejszym artykule autorka porusza problematykę dotyczącą odpowiedzialności odszkodowawczej państwa. Przedstawia polskie regulacje konstytucyjne jak również regulacje z zakresu prawa cywilnego. W analizie uwzględnia aktualne problemy związane z konsekwencjami wynikającymi z wprowadzenia ograniczeń praw i wolności w trakcie pandemii COVID-19.
EN
In this article, the author addresses the issue of state compensation liability. She presents Polish constitutional regulations as well as civil law regulations. In the analysis, she takes into account current problems related to the consequences resulting from the introduction of restrictions on rights and freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.
EN
In the course of the evolution of state liability for damages caused in the exercise of public authority the phenomenon of constitutionalisation can be observed, dating from Polish Constitution of March 1921, which guaranteed the citizens a compensation for damages caused by the wrongful act of state authority. Not until the Polish act of state liability for damages caused by public officials entered into force in 1956, was this constitutional guarantee explicitly expressed in a legal act. The legislator partially took into consideration then the solutions propounded by Witold Czachórski, especially in the draft of a decree, which was published in 1946 in the pages of the academic journal “Państwo i Prawo” as a part of his contribution concentrating on the unification of regulations concerning state liability for damages. One of the most important postulates of Witold Czachórski, which is reflected also in contemporary constitutional and statutory legislation, was implementing a method of regulation based on the civil law system, in which a citizen is an equal party to a legal relation and has a claim against the state being a citizen’s equal before a dispute settlement body.
EN
The state’s liability for tort according to the principle of equity was introduced in Poland for the first time in the act from 1956 on the State’s liability for damages done by the state functionaries. Respects of equity assume an assessment of the situation when the damage occurred through the prism of moral convictions and axiological principles consolidated in the society and accepted in the legal system. The assessment of the validity of adjudication for damages should consider both the objective circumstances of the matter and the injured person’s situation. Liability comes into play in the situation when the damage was done by the action of an organ of public authority which was according to the law. The exceptional character of liability determines limiting it only to the injuries on a person, which is justified by the special character of goods included within compensation protection.
EN
With the enforcement of the Business Activities Freedom Act, the provisions of Chapter 5 entitled “Entrepreneur Inspection” have become to apply in the Polish Public Economic Law. The essence of the regulation lies in the principles for inspection, namely standards to be met by each and every entrepreneur’s business inspection performed by administrative bodies. Legal regulation of entrepreneur inspection, providing for legal framework of the procedure and setting limits to the actions of the inspection authority, was aimed by the legislator to limit the natural advantage of the authority over the entrepreneur during the inspection proceeding. The legislator was aware that the very introduction of principles for inspection would not be sufficient to effectively protect entrepreneurs’ interests. For this reason, the administrative authorities have been obliged to apply the principles for trader inspection through far-reaching negative legal consequences to the authority in the event of breach. The article analyses such legal solutions which provide entrepreneurs with the right to pursue compensation from the state, and permit demanding that the evidence gathered during the inspection could not be used against such trader by the administration authorities (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle). The author presents the scope of application of both such instruments, and takes a stand as regards related detailed issues which have so far been the bone of contention both in the doctrine and in the judgements.
PL
Rozwój infrastruktury drogowej jest procesem wysoce kapitałochłonnym. Koszty związane z jej rozwojem obejmują nie tylko koszty budowy i eksploatacji, lecz również wypłatę odszkodowań. Celem artykułu jest identyfikacja zakresu odpowiedzialności inwestora wynikającej z rozwoju infrastruktury drogowej i jej wpływu na wzrost kosztów. Przedmiotem badań jest odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza Skarbu Państwa związana z rozwojem infrastruktury w wybranych inwestycjach drogowych. Realizując postawiony cel, dokonano analizy regulacji prawnych dotyczących odpowiedzialności Skarbu Państwa oraz orzecznictwa sądowego w tym zakresie. Wyniki badań pozwoliły na sformułowanie kilku wniosków. Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza Skarbu Państwa z tytułu wywłaszczeń pod budowę dróg jest ograniczona i nie obejmuje utraconych korzyści. Najczęstszą przyczyną wypłaty odszkodowań przez inwestora są szkody spowodowane przez hałas i drgania. Skuteczność dochodzenia odszkodowania zwiększa się, jeżeli nieruchomość jest położona w obszarze ograniczonego użytkowania. Zakres odpowiedzialności z powodu wzrostu hałasu lub przenoszenia się drgań obejmuje również szkody dotyczące dóbr osobistych.
EN
Developing the road infrastructure is expensive, with the costs including not only for construction and maintenance but also the payment of compensation for damages. The main aim of this research is to identify the investorʼs scope of responsibility for the development of the road infrastructure and its impact on cost growth. The subject of research is the responsibility the State Treasury bears for developing infrastructure in selected road investments. An analysis of legal regulations governing the State Treasury’s liability and judicial decisions in this area has been conducted. The results of research lead to several conclusions. The responsibility of the State Treasury for expropriating road construction is limited and does not include lost benefits. The most common reason damages are paid by the investor is damage caused by noise and vibration. Claims are more effectively recovered if the property is located in a Restricted Use Zone. The scope of responsibility for noise and vibrations include damages on personality rights too.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.