Anna Maria Barańska ORCID: 0000-0001-7312-3587 Jagiellonian University DOI: 10.19195/1733-5779.29.16 Establishment by virtue of the law of land easement with the content corresponding to transmission easement in the light of the resolution of the Supreme Court of June 5, 2018, in case III CZP 50/17 JEL Classification: K11 Keywords: land easement, transmission easement, state-owned company, transmission company Słowa kluczowe: służebność gruntowa o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu, uwłaszcze- nie, przedsiębiorstwo państwowe, przedsiębiorstwo przesyłowe Abstract: The subject of this article is the resolution of the enlarged composition of the Supreme Court of 5 June 2018, which resolves the issue of acquiring by land easement with content corre- sponding to transmission easement together with the acquisition by a state-owned company of trans- mission facilities developed on State Treasury properties. As a result of granting property rights to state-owned companies of state property in the early 1990s, the ownership of transmission infra- structure and the property on which they were situated were separated. In the judicature, divergent concepts emerged regarding the solution of the issue of further use of this land by transmission companies. According to the first one, the transfer of property rights was accompa- nied by the creation by law of land easement with content corresponding to a transmission easement. On the other hand, according to the second concept, obtaining a legal title for further use of the property was possible only through contractual acquisition or prescription of transmission easement. Powstanie z mocy prawa służebności gruntowej o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu w świetle uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 czerwca 2018 roku, sygn. akt III CZP 50/17 Abstrakt: Tematem artykułu jest uchwała powiększonego składu Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 czerwca 2018 roku, która rozstrzyga kwestię nabycia z mocy prawa służebności gruntowej Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne 29 Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne 29, 2019 © for this edition by CNS SPPAiE29.indb 227 08.01.2020 15:16:46 228 | AnnA MAriA BArAńskA o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu wraz z nabyciem przez przedsiębiorstwo państwowe własności urządzeń przesyłowych posadowionych na nieruchomościach Skarbu Państwa. W wyniku uwłaszczenia mienia państwowego na początku lat dziewięćdziesiątych ubiegłego wieku doszło do rozdzielenia własności infrastruktury przesyłowej oraz nieruchomości, na której były one posado- wione. W judykaturze pojawiły się rozbieżne koncepcje odnośnie do rozwiązania kwestii dalszego korzystania przez przedsiębiorstwa przesyłowe z tych gruntów. Zgodnie z pierwszą z nich przenie- sieniu prawa własności towarzyszyło powstanie z mocy prawa służebności gruntowej o treści odpo- wiadającej służebności przesyłu. Na podstawie drugiej — uzyskanie tytułu prawnego do dalszego korzystania z nieruchomości było możliwe wyłącznie w drodze umownego nabycia albo zasiedzenia służebności przesyłu. Introduction Despite more than a decade since the introduction of the transmission easement to the Civil Code, the use of land easement with content corresponding to the easement of transmission still raises numerous controversies. One of the issues that arose from the interpretation of this concept was the question of the possi- bility of acquiring by virtue of law land easement with content corresponding to transmission easement together with the acquisition by a state-owned company of the ownership of transmission facilities located on State Treasury properties. This issue was definitely resolved by the recent resolution of the seven Supreme Court judges of 5 June 2018,1 answering the question whether acquisition by the transmission company of transmission facilities located on properties owned by the State Treasury on the basis of the Act of 20 December 1990 on the amend- ment of the Act on State-owned Companies,2 resulted in the acquisition by the transmission company by virtue of law — as a right related to the ownership of such equipment — land easement with content corresponding to transmission easement, encumbering those properties. Although the Supreme Court’s response ultimately seems quite intuitive, in the period preceding the adoption of the resolution the discrepancies in the jurispru- dence, weakening its consistency and predictability were widely visible. Facts The discussed legal issue was transferred to the enlarged composition of the Supreme Court as a result of examining a cassation complaint in a case in which the applicant demanded that his property should be encumbered with a paid trans- mission easement for the benefit of the participant in the proceedings — Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. The participant, on the other hand, defended 1 Decision of the Supreme Court of 5 June 2018, in case III CZP 50/17, Legalis no. 1779436. 2 Act of 20 December 1990 amending the act on state-owned enterprises and amending certain other acts, Official Journal 1990 No. 2, item 6. Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne 29, 2019 © for this edition by CNS SPPAiE29.indb 228 08.01.2020 15:16:46 ESTABLISHMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE LAW OF LAND EASEMENT | 229 himself with charge of acquisitive prescription of transmission easement (or land easement with content corresponding to transmission easement). The District Court determined that the property covered by the application remained state-owned property since the development of transmission facilities until 15 July 1993. Taking into account the claim, the Court indicated that the period of acquisitive prescription had not yet elapsed due to the fact that during the period of uniform state ownership the usucaption of land easement (with con- tent corresponding to easement of transmission) by the state-owned company was excluded in the case of facilities located on state-owned land. As a consequence, the course of the usucaption period began only on 15 July 1993, when the property was sold to the applicant, thus ceasing to be owned by the State Treasury. The Court of Appeal hearing the case as a result of the participant’s appeal deliberated, however, whether the recognition of the allegation of acquisitive pre- scription of land easement with content corresponding to transmission easement does not need to be preceded by an assessment as to whether the entity raising such an allegation no longer has a legal title to use the property in question. The creation of such a title by virtue of law on the day when the state-owned enter- prise acquired the ownership of the transmission facility would render the appli- cation to establish the transmission easement unjustified. The previous position of judicature and doctrine In the period preceding the adoption of the resolution of 5 June 2018, the above-mentioned issue was the subject of discrepancies not only in the case law of common courts, but also in the decisions of the Supreme Court. In some judg- ments, the Supreme Court took the position that due to ownership transforma- tions in the 1990s, a state-owned enterprise acquiring ownership of transmission facilities also automatically acquired the right to further use of the property on which they were located. At the same time, in other cases, it approved the view that acquisitive prescription of land easement with content corresponding to the easement of transmission by a state enterprise (or its legal successors) is possible on land owned by the State Treasury, starting from the day of enfranchisement. However, due to the fact that the possession of a legal title to the property pre- vents the commencement of the course of acquisitive prescription, these theses are clearly contradictory. The first of the evoked jurisprudence line was initiated by the decisions of the Supreme Court of 12 May 2016.3 It was explained in them that with the abolition — as of 1 February 1989 — of the construction of a single state property, there was no automatic transformation of the rights of state legal persons to the part of national 3 Decision of the Supreme Court of 12 May 2016 in case IV CSK 509/15, Legalis no. 1488827; Decision of the Supreme Court of 12 May 2016 in case IV CSK 510/15, Legalis no. 1472995. Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne 29, 2019 © for this edition by CNS SPPAiE29.indb 229 08.01.2020 15:16:46 230 | AnnA MAriA BArAńskA property remaining in their management. Only on 5 December 5 1990, based on Art. 2 para. 1 and 2 of the Act of 29 September 1990 amending the act on land management and expropriation of real estate,4 the right of the management with respect to land in the right of perpetual usufruct has been transformed into land and buildings ownership. However, in relation to other property components, including transmission facilities, the transformation into ownership took place on 7 January 1991, pursuant to the provision of Art. 1 point 9 of the Act of 20 December 1990 amending the Act on state enterprises. Under this provision, there was an amendment to Art. 42 para. 2 of the Act of 25 January 1981 on state-owned enterprises5 by de- leting from its content the words “forming part of a nationwide property.” Since then, the property of state-owned enterprises has ceased to form part of nationwide property. Subsequently, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the state-owned enterprise, which included transmission facilities developed on real estates owned by the State