Restytucja mienia objętego działaniem tzw. dekretu Bieruta z 26 października 1945 r. w świetle działań Komisji do spraw reprywatyzacji nieruchomości warszawskich
Restitution of Assets Covered by the So-called Bierut Decree of 26 October 1945 in Light of Operations by the Commission for Reprivatization of Warsaw Real Estate

Summary/Abstract: The nationalization process that took place in Poland was driven by the political ideals of communism and, in principle, did not include compensating former owners. The issue of reprivatization, understood as the return of seized property or payment of compensation, has yet to be solved. In order to restore the protection of the public interest by remedying the infringements of law committed while issuing decisions on the basis of the provisions of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Usage of Real Estate within Limits of the Capital City of Warsaw (known as the Bierut Decree), the Specific Rules for Removing Legal Effects of Reprivatization Decisions Concerning Warsaw Real Estate Issued in Violation of Law Act of 9 March 2017 has been adopted. The immediate effectiveness of the orders issued by the Commission for Reprivatization of Warsaw Real Estate, which provides the basis for entries into section III of land and mortgage registers, and the final nature of the Commission’s decisions, which enables entries into section II of land and mortgage registers only seven days from their publishing on the website of the office supporting the Minister of Justice, violate the principle of reliance on public records in land and mortgage registers. Defining the Commission’s matters as urgent and precluding the possibility of reconciling the status of the entries disclosed in land and mortgage registers with the actual legal status in the course of a trial, as well as the exclusion of the application of various principles governing administrative proceedings, raise questions about the significance of the Commissions’ operations to real estate trade and the rights of its participants. Whether the Commission succeeds in overcoming the absence of systemic reprivatization regulations is an open question.

• Details
• Contents