23 Fall 2021 issued in violation of the law. Through this provision, Polish law offered a way to seek compensation from the state even though it was not possible to claim the property unlawfully taken, or if it would cause severe difficulties or disrupt the legal order if the property was reclaimed. In the absence of a restitution bill, this procedure was used by owners of properties taken by the Communist government, as in some cases they could successfully claim that the decision under which the property had been nationalized violated rules of nationalization that had been enacted by the Communist authorities themselves. While this procedure of filing for annulment was far from perfect, it served as the only way to fight at least some of the nationalization decisions. The Effect of the Amendment The amendment fundamentally changes the legal grounds under which it is possible to claim a decision was illegal. Making a claim will now be subject to a ten-year limitation period, but it is now easier to claim compensation rather than to revert to legal action that has been underway for many years. However, in all cases subject to the ten-year limitation, it will not be possible to initiate proceedings for annulment if 30 years have elapsed from the date of delivery or publication of the decision. In practice, the amendment, henceforth, makes it impossible to challenge nationalization decisions issued before 1989 by the Communist government. As a result, when it comes to the annulment of a decision issued in violation of the law, there now exist two limitation periods: 10 years – after which it is not possible to revert the effects of the decision, however it is still possible to claim compensation; and 30 years – after which it is not possible to initiate an administrative proceeding, or try to claim compensation. Furthermore, the amendment states: administrative proceedings for the annulment of a decision, initiated thirty years after the date of delivery or publication of the decision and not completed before the date of entry in force of this Act by a final decision or order, shall be cancelled by operation of law. This means that each administrative proceeding concerning the annulment on grounds outlined previously, will from now on be terminated without issuing a decision. This will inevitably cause emotional distress and financial loss for those who have been waiting for many years for justice. Having said that, according to Article 2 of the Polish Constitution of April 2, 1997, “The Republic of Poland shall be a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice.” The principle of a democratic legal state is a set of values expressed directly or indirectly in the constitution, concerning the law, the state system and the relationship between the state and the individual. Among the values covered by this principle are political values (e.g., division of power, political pluralism, independence of the courts), economic values (e.g., freedom of economic activity), and legal values (e.g., adequate vacatio legis, prohibition of retroactive effect of law). One of the main principles of a democratic state is protection of the individual's trust in the state and the laws made by the state, also known as the principle of loyalty of the state towards its citizens. Rule of protection of trust in the state and the law assumes that public authorities should act loyally and honestly towards the individual, creating a sense of stability and legal security. In this context, the amendment of this administrative procedure might be a violation of the constitutional principles. Terminating the proceedings that were initiated in a legal system that allowed reprivatization claims without any time limit, undermines the principle of protection of trust in the state. Injustice for Those Who Have Been Seeking Justice The possibility of challenging defective administrative decisions from the years 1945-1965, when most of the Communist regime’s “nationalization decisions” were issued, emerged only in the 1990s when archival files and annulment proceedings were made available. Initiating proceedings in complex cases often took months and sometimes even decades. Time has never been on the side of victims, especially those subjected to injustices and/or violations in the distant past. However, there has always been the perception and hope that no matter how sweeping the arc of justice, it would eventually bend in their direction and ultimately render a just and proper decision. As an example, according to the new amendment, the administrative proceeding for the annulment of a nationalization decision from 1952, initiated in 2010 and still unresolved, shall now be closed without the rendering of a decision. Reprivatization cases (annulment of nationalization decisions) are extremely lengthy in time due to their complex nature and requirements of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=