Ownership is considered, predominatly, to be a legal notion. But it has also some conotations in the frame of economics, philosophy and sociology. In the doctrine of law there were framed numerous and slightly different definitions of ownership. Most of them, however, emphasise the dominant role of the owner’s unlimited and exclusive power over a thing (or value) as well as his (her) dominat role to explore possibilities of legal and factual disposal. The Constitution of Poland of 1997 deals with the ownership (property) rights twice: in article 21 (within the basic constitutional regulations) and, even more detaily, in article 64 (1–3), in Chapter II of the Constitution, dealing with the civil fredoms and rights of entity. The central issue under the author’s consideration should be framed in a question: to which extend the limitations pointed in article 31(3) of the Constitution may define exploration of the owner’s rights and powers protected by the Constitution, in particular; by its provisions framed in its articles 21 and 64?

Limitations of the Property Right in Polish Constitutional Law

The right to property as an implicit subjective right is not an absolute and unlimited. The constitutionally guaranteed right to property may, in certain cases and under appropriate conditions, be restricted. According to the Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the necessity to introduce limitations in the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights, including the right to property, is only possible if the criterion of a democratic state is taken into account. The possibility of statutory and non-violent interference in the right to property was also expressed in Article 64 of the Constitution, according to which everyone is entitled to the right to property. The assessment of the admissibility of interference in the right to property takes place in the light of undefined in a complete manner the principle of proportionality and the principle of the essence of the property right, which affects the manner of resolving the issue of the constitutionality of a given limitation of this right.

The study discusses another statutory attempt to partially and ad hoc solution of the problem of claims of the former owners of the so-called Warsaw land. The main objective of the Act of 17 September 2020 amending the Act on the special rules for removing the legal effects of reprivatization decisions regarding real-estate in Warsaw, issued in violation of the law, and the Real-estate Management Act is to significantly reduce the scale of restitution of Warsaw real-estate by extending the list of grounds for refusing to grant the right of perpetual usufruct to the entitled entity and protection of tenants living in premises in reprivatized buildings. The act does not, in any way, end the process of settling accounts with the former owners.

The essence of freedoms and rights in the selected jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal concerning the right to property

The concept of the essence of freedom and rights shapes, together with the principle of proportionality, the extent of permissible interference in this sphere. The article addresses the problem of the possibility of prescription of a limited property right as a possible interference with this right as well as the relationship between Art. 31 sec. 3 and Art. 64. 3 of the Constitution in the context of possible differences in the level of protection they provide in the light of preserving the essence of the property right.