Odpowiedzialność zarządzającego lotniskiem za szkody wynikające z ustanowienia obszaru ograniczonego użytkowania. Glosa do wyroku SN z dnia 6 czerwca 2019 r., II CSK 222/18

Authors:

• Jakub Pokrzywniak

Abstract

The judgment of the Supreme Court discussed in the paper does not ostensibly deserve close attention. It is one of numerous judgments relating to claims pursued by property owners against airport operators under Article 129(2) of the Environmental Protection Law in fine. Moreover, the judgment reverses the appealed judgment, remanding the case for re-examination, and does not conclusively resolve the case. A more detailed analysis reveals, however, that it may be ground-breaking for the legal interpretation of the provision. On the one hand, the judgment preserves some of the faulty theses related to interpretation and practical application of this provision, presented in case law for a few past years. Specifically, it restates the thesis that Article 129(2) of the Environmental Protection Law provides for a remedy for loss resulting from the very fact of establishment of a limited use area. In my opinion, this view is unjustified as the legislator defines the airport operator’s liability to pay damages in a different, narrower manner. So the event that causes loss is not the very establishment of a limited use area but the limitation of the manner of real property use (provided for in relation to establishment of such an area). On the other hand, however, the judgment may be interpreted as an opportunity to correct the current reasoning, at least partially. Contrary to the recent case law, it is indicated that the extent of the loss and, in consequence, the value of the claim should be determined in such a manner that they exclusively take account of the circumstance of entry into force of the act establishing such an area – not any circumstances causing the real property to lose value. It is inadmissible that the court should pass a judgment based on assessments resulting from general experience or the fact that a given property is stigmatized on the market.