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?

Premises of expropriation in the light of the provisions of the Constitution

The institution of emitent domain is a relatively new element of the legal system, but it is currently used in most democratic countries. Due to its importance and uniqueness, the rules of emitent domain are determined in the constitutional acts of each country. Emitent domain causes complete or partial reduction of deprivation of property, it is therefore necessary to introduce appropriate safeguards in national law and international law. Legislator in art. 21 and 64 of the Constitution protects property. On the other hand, polish constitution allows emitent domain, but limits usage of this institution through the obligation to indicate a specific public purpose, as well as the payment of fair compensation. The proper interpretation of the terms “fair compensation” and “public purpose” is very important for the institution of emitent domain. According to the art. 21 paragraph. 2 of the Constitution these are two main premises to conduct a process of lawful emitent domain. Case law of administrative courts, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights allows you to define them. Especially the issue of just compensation has already been, in my opinion properly defined. In contrast, because of the constantly changing economic and political situation public purposes must be constantly redefined. This duty belongs to the legislator, who should know best the needs of the country and citizens at the time.

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 article presents the issue of compliance of the Polish Constitution with the Act of 11 September 2015 on the entitlement to the property of the Holiday Employee Fund (Dz.U. No. 1824). The author presents the origins of the organization, and what changes have taken place in its legal status. The Act regulating the status of assets after Holiday Employee Fund was declared unconstitutional in 1997. The legislator had to regulate this issue again, which did not happen until 2015. The author estimates the new regulation based on the constitutional principles of protection of property rights, democratic rule of law, non-retroactivity and certainty of real estate transactions.