In today's article from the series "Tuesday Mornings for the Construction Industry," we discuss the latest resolution of a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Administrative Court dated March 16, 2026, file reference I OPS 4/25 , regarding a legal issue concerning proceedings to establish the right of perpetual usufruct under the so-called Warsaw Decree. Although this ruling is not groundbreaking, it constitutes significant confirmation of well-established case law, in particular that previously presented in the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court dated June 24, 2024, file reference I OPS 1/23.
Thesis of the resolution
The Supreme Administrative Court once again ruled that the purchaser of claims arising from Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Warsaw Decree is not entitled to the status of a party within the meaning of Article 28 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in the proceedings for the establishment of the right of perpetual usufruct.
This means that the mere fact of acquiring a decree claim (e.g. by way of an assignment agreement) does not entitle one to participate in administrative proceedings as a party.
The resolution is in line with the interpretation previously adopted by the Supreme Administrative Court, which states that the status of a party in decree proceedings does not result from civil law transactions, decree proceedings are of a special nature and are not subject to a simple "transfer" of civil law mechanisms, and the acquisition of a claim does not mean entering into the legal situation of an entity entitled under administrative law.
The essence of the decision
The key issue boiled down to whether the purchaser of a decree claim could be considered a party to administrative proceedings for the establishment of perpetual usufruct. The Supreme Administrative Court consistently held that the status of a party stems solely from a legal interest within the meaning of Article 28 of the Code of Administrative Procedure; this interest must stem from a norm of administrative law. As indicated in the justification: "The list of entities substantively legitimized under the decree regulations was not expanded by the legislator itself, and even less so, can it be expanded through interpretation by entities applying the law. Neither the Warsaw Decree nor any other normative act contains any regulations that would grant the purchaser of the rights specified in Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Decree the status of a party to proceedings aimed at establishing perpetual usufruct."
Moreover, the Court emphasized that Article 28 of the Code of Administrative Procedure should define the circle of parties to the proceedings in this case based on administrative law provisions and cannot be modified by civil law contracts, meaning that a rights assignment agreement does not create such an interest. A legal interest must also be individual, specific, real, current, and direct. Importantly, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that admitting claim purchasers as parties would lead to: expanding the circle of participants in the proceedings, complicating decree cases, and further prolonging and destabilizing the proceedings.
Summary
The latest resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court does not change the current interpretation, but rather confirms and clarifies it. It clearly indicates that purchasers of decree claims are not parties to proceedings to establish perpetual usufruct.
For practice, this means greater stability of proceedings, but also the need for a more informed approach to claims trading and the assessment of investment risks.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of March 23, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
