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.

Compensation in the Light of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the Civil Code

The article discusses the issue of compensation in the light of the provisions of the Polish Constitution and the Civil Code. The Constitution primarily deals with compensation for expropriation for public purposes, while the compensation provided in the Civil Code reflects the realization of the idea of justice, which is one of the fundamental principles of Polish private law, ensuring the compensation for the damage caused to rights and interests protected by law. The Constitution refers to just compensation, while the Civil Code speaks of full compensation. The author argues that these terminological differences do not deprive the entitled person, under both the Constitution and the Civil Code, of the right to full compensation. Referring to the situations discussed, the author demonstrates that, while the principle of full compensation is not an absolute rule and the law allows for compensation to be awarded at a lower amount than the actual damage, the same approach should apply to the constitutional principle of just compensation. To ensure satisfaction for individuals deprived of their rights through expropriation, the author proposes introducing a legal solution whereby an individual dissatisfied with the amount of compensation received could apply to a common court for a review of the compensation amount. This approach would, on the one hand, safeguard the public interest in acquiring the necessary rights to achieve a public purpose, while, on the other hand, protect those affected by expropriation through an independent body separate from the expropriation procedure participants.