The article presents an outline of Polish construction of possession. In particular, the paper presents S. Wróblewski's, F. Zoll’s and A. Kunicki’s views on possession. The author explains the relation between protection and exclusiveness of possession and points out that contrary to popular belief possessory proceedings are not quick and simple.
In the gloss to the decision of the Supreme Court of 29 June 2016, III CZP 25/16, the author critically assessed the opinion expressed therein that it is not possible to effectively pursue an action for restoration of possession (release of things) against a person who infringed possession if that person transferred ownership to another person during the lawsuit. Because contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, it should be found that the Defendant’s standing in such a situation is possible due to the norm contained in art. 192(3) of the civil Code. This provision also allows for issuing a judgment which would be effective and enforceable against the person to whom the defendant transferred possession during the lawsuit.
The topic is necessitated by the increase in the number of separate proceedings in the Polish Civil Procedure Code, which reverses previously existing and natural proportion between ordinary proceedings, normally used to hear most cases, and separate proceedings, which are only to be used to hear certain types of cases. Provisions of Articles 478 and 479 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code raise serious doubts in the practice of courts and are inadequate to the needs of the practice. They are also not fully correlated with the provisions of substantive law (the Polish Civil Code). Therefore, according to the author, proceedings in cases of infringement of possession do not require a separate regulation and should be removed from the Polish Civil Procedure Code.
PL
Podjęcie tematu wynika ze zwiększania liczby postępowań odrębnych w Kodeksie postępowania cywilnego, co powoduje odwrócenie istniejącej uprzednio i naturalnej proporcji między postępowaniem zwykłym, służącym rozpoznawaniu większości spraw, a postępowaniami odrębnymi, mającymi służyć wyłącznie rozpoznawaniu pewnych rodzajów spraw. Przepisy art. 478 i 479 K.p.c. budzą poważne wątpliwości w praktyce sądów, nie są adekwatne do potrzeb praktyki i nie są w pełni skorelowane z przepisami prawa materialnego. Dlatego postępowanie w sprawach o naruszenie posiadania nie wymaga, zdaniem autorki, odrębnej regulacji i powinno zostać usunięte z Kodeksu.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.