The cases of Warsaw properties illegally seized during the communist era under the so-called Bierut Decree continue to stir up strong emotions and have not been fully resolved. Although the amendments to the Code of Administrative Procedure (KPA) were intended to impose a "thick line," the latest rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court demonstrate that the fight for justice and compensation in civil proceedings is still possible.
30-year barrier – Amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure of 2021
The amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure of August 16, 2021, became a key challenge for heirs. It introduced a mechanism according to which:
- Proceedings to declare decisions invalid, initiated after 30 years from their delivery or announcement, cannot be continued.
- Unfinished proceedings initiated before the amendment entered into force and concerning decisions from more than 30 years ago are subject to discontinuation by operation of law .
For many families, this meant blocking the path to compensation for lost property, as the declaration of invalidity of an administrative decision is usually a necessary precedent in civil proceedings.
The case of the tenement house on Środkowa Street: The third generation fights for the truth
However, a recent judgment by the Supreme Administrative Court (case file no. I OSK 467/23) offers new hope. The case concerned a tenement house in Warsaw's Praga district, expropriated in 1950 for alleged war purposes.
- In 1957, the then owner filed an application for the return of the building or compensation.
- remained unheeded by administrative bodies for decades
- Years later, the heir (the owner’s granddaughter) requested a change of decision and an award of compensation.
The Ministry of Development, based on new regulations, discontinued the proceedings, finding that the 30-year period had expired in 1980.
A groundbreaking position of the administrative courts
The Provincial Administrative Court, and subsequently the Supreme Administrative Court, did not agree to such a simplified treatment of the case.
- The Provincial Administrative Court found the Minister’s decision premature , pointing out that the justification for the impossibility of considering the case was too laconic.
- The Supreme Administrative Court repealed the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court for reconsideration , but with specific guidelines: the court of first instance must substantively examine the significance of the motion of December 30, 1957.
The heirs' attorneys successfully argued that the discontinuation of the ongoing proceedings (resulting from an unresolved application filed years ago) violates the constitutional principle of acquired rights . Importantly, they also argued that the seizure of the property itself was unlawful, as the military never owned the building, and the municipality had been renting apartments there to tenants for years.
What does this mean for other heirs?
The Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of February 24, 2026 sends a clear message: administrative bodies cannot automatically dismiss cases, ignoring historical applications that have never been thoroughly considered.
If your family filed claims for property restitution or compensation back in the 1950s or 1960s and the state did not respond, the 2021 amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure may not be the final barrier to pursuing claims.
However, each case requires an individual legal analysis, especially in terms of examining the continuity of proceedings and the nature of the gross violation of law when issuing expropriation decisions.
Our law firm specializes in complex real estate compensation cases. If you require analysis of historical documentation in the context of the latest Supreme Administrative Court rulings, please contact us. We offer representation in compensation disputes before courts of all instances.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of April 22, 2026.
Author:
Series editor:
