The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025 is one of the most significant rulings on the protection of property rights in recent times. The decision of the Constitutional Tribunal unequivocally challenged a long-established judicial practice. Previously, transmission companies could acquire easement appurtenants that corresponded in content to transmission line easements. This was possible through the right of prescription before statutory implementation in 2008.
Table of Contents
- What Was the Subject of the Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025?
- Content of the Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgment
- Criticism of the Supreme Court’s Existing Line of Case Law
- Why Was Acquisitive Prescription Impossible Before 2008?
- Effects of the Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgment for Property Owners
- Effects of the Judgment for Transmission Companies
- Does the Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgment Have Retroactive Effect?
- Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025 – Summary
- FAQ – Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025
What Was the Subject of the Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025?
The case before the Constitutional Tribunal was initiated by doubts of the district courts. They challenged the constitutionality of the case law developed by the Supreme Court. That concept permitted acquisitive prescription of a land easement corresponding in substance to a transmission easement before 3 August 2008. I.e. before the entry into force of Articles 305¹–305⁴ of the Polish Civil Code.
The issue concerned in particular transmission installations constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, power lines, gas pipelines, and telecommunications infrastructure. It involved installations on private land constructed without agreements or payment to owners.
Content of the Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgment
The Constitutional Tribunal issued a decision that Art. 292, in conjunction with Art. 285 § 1 and 2 of the Civil Code are inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. This refers to regulations understood in such a way that they allowed a transmission company or the State Treasury, before 3 August 2008, to acquire by way of acquisitive prescription a land easement corresponding in content to a transmission easement.
The Tribunal indicated that such an interpretation violates:
- Article 21(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (protection of ownership),
- Article 64(2) and (3) in conjunction with Art. 31(3) of the Constitution (restrictions on property rights allowed only by the law, with respect for its substance),
- Article 2 of the Constitution (the principle of citizens’ trust in the State and the law enacted by it).
Criticism of the Supreme Court’s Existing Line of Case Law
Origins of the Problem in the Supreme Court’s Case Law
The Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment extensively addressed Supreme Court jurisprudence. Since the early 2000s, it gradually developed the concept of a land easement corresponding to a transmission easement. This concept was consolidated in resolutions and judgments from 2003 and 2008. This was even before the transmission easement was formally added to the Civil Code.
The issue was crucial for transmission installations on private property during the period of the Polish People’s Republic (PRL). It also affected the early years of the political and economic transformation. At that time, no uniform rules governed the infrastructure use of third-party land.
Legislative Character of Judicial Interpretation
The Constitutional Tribunal held that the Supreme Court’s case law was law-making in nature. It went beyond mere interpretation. In particular, it led to:
- the creation of a new type of limited property right, not provided for expressis verbis in the Act,
- departure from the classical concept of a land easement, which presupposes the existence of a dominant estate,
- allowing permanent, free encumbrance of private property in favour of transmission companies or the State Treasury.
According to the Tribunal, such practice exceeded the permissible limits of legal interpretation. It resulted in a modification of the structural elements of property law.
Violation of the Numerus Clausus Principle of Property Rights
The Tribunal emphasised that property law is based on the principle of numerus clausus. It is expressed in Article 244 of the Civil Code. This principle means that the catalogue of property rights is closed. Their types and content may be determined only by the legislator.
A court, even when applying functional or purposive interpretation, is not authorised to create new property rights. Nor to the elimination of their constitutive elements. Meanwhile, a land easement corresponding in substance to a transmission easement, deprived of a dominant estate, did not fit within the statutory construction set out in Art. 285 of the Civil Code.
Consequences for the Protection of Property Rights
The Constitutional Tribunal examined the consequences of this case law for property owners. Its long-term entrenchment weakened the protection of ownership.
Landowners could not foresee permanent limits on their property rights without compensation. Especially based on the interpretation of general provisions only. Such a situation violated the principle of citizens’ trust in the State and the law enacted by it. It resulted in a permanent, free restriction of ownership without explicit statutory basis.
Why Was Acquisitive Prescription Impossible Before 2008?
The Tribunal unequivocally stated that before the entry into force of Art. 305¹–305⁴ of the Civil Code, the transmission easement did not exist within the legal system. Since a specific real right was not recognised by statute, it could not be the object of possession or acquisitive prescription.
According to the Tribunal, such a mechanism had retroactive effects. It recognised an institution introduced only in 2008. This approach violated the principle of legal certainty.
Effects of the Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgment for Property Owners
The judgment strengthens the position of landowners affected by transmission infrastructure.
| Scope | What does it mean in practice? | Significance for the Owner |
| Establishment of easements | Possibility to request the formal establishment of a transmission easement. | Clarification of the legal status of the property. |
| Remuneration | Right to one-off or periodic remuneration. | Compensation for restriction of property rights. |
| Retroactive Claims | Pursuit of payment for use without legal title (within limitation periods). | Compensation for long-term violations. |
| Property value | Consideration of interference in valuation. | Basis for financial claims. |
Effects of the Judgment for Transmission Companies
For transmission companies, the judgment means a fundamental change in existing litigation strategies.
| Area | Previous practice | Effect of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment |
| Acquisitive prescription | Reliance on prescription before 2008. | Lack of a constitutional legal basis |
| Legal title | Functioning without contracts. | The need to clarify the legal status. |
| Costs | No remuneration. | Obligation to pay remuneration. |
| Litigation risk | Limited. | Significant increase in the number of disputes. |
| Strategy | Defence based on the case law of the Supreme Court. | The need to change the line of defence. |
Does the Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgment Have Retroactive Effect?
The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal is universally binding. Thus, it is also binding for the courts. Yet, it does not automatically set aside final and binding judgments. It may still serve as a basis to challenge existing practices in pending and new cases.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025 – Summary
The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025 on transmission easements is a breakthrough in the protection of property rights. The Tribunal ruled that ownership cannot be restricted by judicial interpretation without a statutory basis. This ruling alters the balance of power between property owners and transmission companies. It foreshadows significant changes in judicial practice.
Find a Professional Legal Support
Property owners and transmission companies should analyse the effects of the judgment of 2 December 2025. A professional analysis allows for assessment of potential claims. It also shows litigation risks and directions for further action. Contact us for legal support!
FAQ – Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 December 2025
Does the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment automatically entitle owners to compensation?
No. The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal does not automatically grant compensation. However, it provides an important legal basis. It allows claims to be pursued in individual civil proceedings. Liability must still be proven.
Is it possible to challenge final judgments on acquisitive prescription of transmission easements?
The Constitutional Tribunal’s judgmentdoes not, by operation of law, overturn final judgments. It may, however, serve as an argument in extraordinary proceedings. This applies only if the statutory conditions are met.
Can transmission companies still rely on acquisitive prescription before 2008?
In light of the judgment, this possibility has been fundamentally challenged. Acquisitive prescription before 3 August 2008 is considered unconstitutional.
Does the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment apply to all types of transmission infrastructure?
Yes. The effects of the judgment apply to all transmission installations. For example, power lines, gas pipelines, district heating networks, and telecommunications infrastructure. The condition is that the issue concerns the period before 2008.
What actions should property owners take after the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling?
Landowners should consider analysing their legal situation. In particular, they should determine whether the transmission company has a legal title, the possibility of establishing a transmission easement, and potential claims for remuneration or payment for use without legal title.
