Abstract

In the resolution of seven judges of 13 July 2016 (III CZP 14/16) the Supreme Court found that the administrative procedure for establishing the right of perpetual usufruct carried out after the annulment of the decision refusing to establish the temporal ownership of the immovable property covered by the decree did not interrupt the limitation period rights. The analysis shows that annulment of a decree decision with ex tunc effect results in a re-examination of the application under substantive law. In addition, the injured party who has suffered damage as a result of a decision in breach of article 156 § 1 of the Administrative Procedure Code is entitled to compensation under article 160 of the Administrative Procedure Code. These proceedings have a separate legal basis, differ in content. A person who has been injured by a decision in breach of art. 156 § 1 of the Civil Code should file claims under art. 160 § 1 of the Administrative Procedure Code. After obtaining the final decision annulling the decision issued in violation of the law. Otherwise, it expires to lose the claim as a result of the expiry of the limitation period.