Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
I CSK 617/24 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal on acquisition of ownership due to lack of evidence proving continuous possession for 30 years.

Case Number I CSK 617/24
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by R.S. against the Lower Court's refusal to recognize the acquisition of ownership by prescription. The applicant claimed continuous possession of the property for thirty years, but the court found no evidence supporting this duration or the requisite intent to own. Consequently, the claim for acquisition of ownership was rejected, and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the cassation proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 100 ust. 1 k.c.; Art. 101 k.c.: The court held that the burden of proof for the duration of possession lies with the claimant, and without sufficient evidence of thirty years of continuous, uninterrupted possession with the intent to own, the acquisition of ownership by prescription cannot be established.

Keywords

AI generated
acquisition of ownership prescription period burden of proof continuous possession intent to own cassation appeal property rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 100 ust. 1 k.c.
Art. 101 k.c.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

I CSK 617/24 POSTANOWIENIE 30 stycznia 2026 r.Sąd Najwyższy w Izbie Cywilnej w składzie: SSN Dariusz Dończyk na posiedzeniu niejawnym 30 stycznia 2026 r. w Warszawie‎w sprawie z wniosku R.S.‎z udziałem Gminy Miasta E.‎o stwierdzenie zasiedzenia,‎na skutek skargi kasacyjnej R.S‎od postanowienia Sądu Okręgowego w Elblągu‎z 30 października 2023 r., I Ca 47/23, 1) odmawia przyjęcia skargi kasacyjnej do rozpoznania; 2) obciąża wnioskodawcę kosztami postępowania kasacyjnego, pozostawiając ich wyliczenie referendarzowi sądowemu. (A.G.)[SOP]