On December 2, 2025, the Constitutional Tribunal issued a ruling of significant importance for property owners and transmission companies. The ruling determined that before 2008, it was not possible to acquire an easement for transmission or a so-called easement corresponding in content to an easement for transmission through adverse possession.
This undermined the long-standing line of case law of the Supreme Court, which for over a decade limited the claims of property owners. In practice, this opens the way to pursuing compensation for unlawful use of property and to demanding its return.
Constitutional Tribunal Ruling of December 2, 2025
By ruling of December 2, 2025, case file no. P 10/16, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled on the inconsistency with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of Article 292 in conjunction with Article 285 § 1 and 2 of the Civil Code, understood in such a way that it enables acquisition by a transmission company or the State Treasury through adverse possession of a land easement corresponding in content to an easement for transmission before the introduction of this type of easement into the Civil Code.
What Is an Easement for Transmission and How Does Adverse Possession Occur?
An easement for transmission allows a transmission company – e.g., the owner of transmission equipment (wires, cables, poles, pipes) – to use another person’s property to a specific extent. In practice, this means, for example, the possibility of placing power poles, running a power line or placing a pipeline, and entering the property for the purpose of servicing or maintaining equipment. Establishment of an easement for transmission occurs for remuneration.
Importantly – an easement for transmission can be acquired through adverse possession. Therefore, if it consists of using a permanent and visible device, after 20 years (in case of obtaining possession in good faith) or 30 years (in case of bad faith), it is considered that the company has acquired such an easement. Despite not having concluded any agreement with the property owner, nor having led to its establishment in any other way.
Transmission Equipment from the Communist Era – The Problem of Lack of Legal Title
Many transmission facilities were built during the communist era, often without the State providing any legal title to the property. Documentation from this period is fragmentary or does not exist. Property owners were not asked for consent to place equipment on their property.
At the same time, the institution of easement for transmission was introduced into the Civil Code only in 2008. Since it did not function before, it would seem that before this date, transmission companies could not acquire an easement for transmission through adverse possession. Consequently, this gives rise to claims for compensation for unlawful use of property on the part of property owners. Property owners would also be entitled to a claim for return of property (possessed by the transmission company without legal title), which would interrupt the adverse possession period in case of filing a lawsuit with the court, thus preventing adverse possession of the easement.
According to some estimates, the problem affects as many as 20 million plots, which could lead to a wave of claims against transmission companies.
Example: a transmission company placed power poles and a power line in 1992. Before 2008, it could not adversely possess an easement for transmission because such an institution was not regulated in the Civil Code. Only from August 3, 2008, could the adverse possession period begin. Assuming that the company entered into possession of the property in good faith, adverse possession of the easement will only occur on August 3, 2028. The property owner is entitled to file a lawsuit for return of the property and for compensation for unlawful use of the property.
Supreme Court Position from 2013
The Supreme Court came to the aid of transmission companies. In a resolution of May 22, 2013, case file no. III CZP 18/13, it recognized that before the introduction of easement for transmission into the Civil Code (August 3, 2008), it was possible for a company to acquire an “easement corresponding to an easement for transmission,” and the company can add the period of easement possession before 2008 to the time of possession required for adverse possession.
Example: a transmission company placed power poles and a power line in 1992. Since it is possible to add the period of easement possession also before 2008, assuming that the company entered into possession of the property in good faith, adverse possession of the easement occurred in 2012. The property owner cannot demand its return or pursue compensation. The transmission company holds legal title to the property (easement for transmission).
Criticism of the Supreme Court Position and Discrepancies in Case Law
The solution adopted by the Supreme Court was widely criticized in legal doctrine, as well as in individual court rulings. They did not take into account the proposed view and granted the claims of property owners against transmission companies. However, such cases remained in the minority. Also in the Supreme Court itself, a line of case law appeared indicating that before the amendment to the Civil Code introducing easement for transmission, the limitation period for adverse possession of this right could not run (decision of February 24, 2023, case file no. III CZP 108/22).
Constitutional Tribunal Ruling – End of Dispute About Adverse Possession Before 2008
The Constitutional Tribunal ruling cuts through the above dispute. It indicates that the interpretation of Civil Code provisions adopted by the Supreme Court in 2013 is unconstitutional. Since the institution of easement for transmission did not function in the legal system before 2008, it is not possible to adversely possess this type of easement before 2008. It is also not possible to add the period of easement possession before 2008 to the time of possession required for adverse possession.
Practical Consequences of the Ruling
Therefore, the Constitutional Tribunal ruling has fundamental significance for the possibility of pursuing claims by property owners on whose property transmission equipment has been placed. The adopted interpretation enables them to both file a claim for return of property and pursue compensation claims for unlawful use of property.
For transmission companies, this means the inability to invoke the adverse possession period before 2008. It also means the necessity of regulating the legal status of occupied properties.
However, it should be remembered that adverse possession of an easement for transmission may occur on August 3, 2028. This will happen if the owner does not take actions interrupting the adverse possession period (does not file a lawsuit for return of the property).
Property owners on whose property transmission equipment has been unlawfully placed can demand return of the property (removal of equipment). They can also demand remuneration for the period during which the transmission company used the property unlawfully. Essentially – for the last 6 years due to the limitation period. It should be remembered that the transmission company will be entitled to pursue establishment of an easement for transmission through court proceedings. However, this can occur for appropriate remuneration.
Finally, it should also be mentioned regarding the publication of the Constitutional Tribunal ruling, on which, according to Article 190 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the entry into force of this ruling depends. Due to political dispute around the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal, its rulings remain consistently unpublished by the Prime Minister (who issues the “Monitor Polski” – the place of publication of Constitutional Tribunal rulings). However, a view appears in case law that the executive authority’s failure to publish a Constitutional Tribunal ruling cannot affect the lack of possibility of its application (as held, for example, by the Regional Court in Szczecin in a judgment of July 3, 2024, case file no. VI U 528/24). The lack of publication of the ruling should therefore not affect the possibility of pursuing claims by property owners.
