Judicial decisions

​On 20 May 2026, in Case II CSKP 950/23, the Supreme Court, sitting in the Civil Chamber, resolved the issue concerning the limitation period for claims arising from the non-contractual use of municipal real estate (immovable property).

Considering whether, in such circumstances, the claim being pursued should be regarded as related to the conduct of a business activity – which, under Article 118 of the Civil Code, would lead to the application of a shortened three-year limitation period – or whether the general limitation period should apply, the Supreme Court pointed out that the nature of activities constituting the management of municipal real estate resources, as specified in Article 25(2) and (2a) in conjunction with Article 23(1) of the Real Estate Management Act (REM Act), must be taken into account. Recalling its previous judgments, the Supreme Court emphasised that such activities are organised and repetitive in nature, based on periodically prepared plans, including forecasts regarding the making available of real estates that belong to the municipal resources and the associated levels of expenditure and revenue. These activities are undoubtedly connected with participation in economic turnover (e.g. Article 23(1)(4), (5), (7) and (7a) in conjunction with Article 25(2) of the REM Act) and should be carried out in accordance with the principles of proper management (Article 12 of the REM Act), which corresponds to the criterion, established in jurisprudence and literature, of subjecting activities to the principle of rational management.

In the light of Article 25(2) and (2a) in conjunction with Article 23(1) of the REM Act, every real estate included in the municipal resources should be subject to the municipality's activities. Manifestations of this activity, falling within the limits of rational resource management – include not only the sale of real estate, its lease, use, or rent, but also its registration and – where necessary – the calculation and recovery of remuneration for its non-contractual use by another entity. These activities constitute the proper management of the municipality's real estate resources, although such management, depending on the legal and factual circumstances surrounding a particular real estate, may take various forms.

The municipality, guided by the principle of rational management, decides what actions to take regarding the non-contractual use of its real estate. This includes whether it will demand the release of the real estate and then make it available for the contractual use to another entity, offer the use of the real estate under a contract, or, if refused, demand its release, or whether it will tolerate the non-contractual use of the real estate, subsequently seeking remuneration. These decisions and the associated actions fall within the scope of the management of municipal real estate resources, although in certain situations the municipality's actual discretion in such matters may be limited, for example, due to ongoing litigation.

In this context, the Supreme Court emphasised that there are no sufficient grounds to assess a claim arising from non-contractual use of a real estate differently from a perspective of the limitation period, depending on whether the user acquired possession of the real estate under a prior contract or other events, provided that it is clear that the real estate (and more broadly, the thing) cannot be used for any purpose other than the conduct of a business activity. In other words, a claim arising from non-contractual use of a thing is connected with the conduct of a business activity, even if the owner did not previously possess the real estate, provided that the thing can be used solely for the conduct of a business activity. 

Judgment of the Supreme Court of 20 May 2026 with the reasons (II CSKP 950/23) 

Polish original