In its resolution of May 28, 2021 (ref. III CZP 27/20), the Supreme Court addressed the important issue of protecting the right to live in a clean environment, answering the question of whether this right constitutes a personal right protected under the provisions of the Civil Code. Although the Supreme Court answered this question negatively, in its resolution it nevertheless indicated how air pollution affects citizens' personal rights, such as health, privacy, and freedom. This judgment has significant practical significance, indicating the possibility of pursuing personal rights protection in connection with environmental degradation.
According to the above-mentioned Supreme Court resolution, "1. The right to live in a clean environment is not a personal right. 2. Health, freedom, and privacy are protected as personal rights (Article 23 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 24 of the Civil Code and Article 448 of the Civil Code), the violation (threat) of which may result from the violation of air quality standards specified in legal provisions."
The case, which reached the Supreme Court, concerned a claim by a resident seeking protection of his personal rights due to high levels of air pollution in his area. Air pollution in the area, including exceedances of standards for PM10, PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone, repeatedly exceeded the permissible levels set by European Union standards, including Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.
The plaintiff therefore believed that air pollution constituted a violation of his right to live in a clean environment and a threat to his health. He sought compensation for the violation of his personal rights and took the matter to court.
In its resolution, the Supreme Court noted that while the right to live in a clean environment is crucial and constitutes a key human right, it is not considered a personal right that can be protected under Article 23 of the Civil Code. Under this provision, personal rights such as health, privacy, freedom, honor, name, and image are protected. The court found that the right to live in a clean environment, despite being a fundamental right of citizens, is not explicitly protected under these provisions.
Despite this, the Supreme Court noted that environmental pollution can lead to the infringement of other personal rights, such as health . Therefore, individuals affected by the negative effects of air pollution may seek protection of their personal rights under the provisions of the Civil Code if pollution affects their health or other personal rights.
The Supreme Court's ruling has significant legal and practical implications. Although the individual right to live in a clean environment is not considered a personal right, individuals harmed by air pollution may seek protection for other personal rights, such as: air pollution can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as other health problems that directly impact the lives of citizens. Long-term exposure to air pollution can also restrict individual freedoms, for example, by reducing their ability to function normally in society due to pollution-related illnesses.
In practice, people affected by the effects of air pollution can claim compensation or damages if they demonstrate that air pollution has an impact on their health or other personal rights.
Although the Supreme Court did not recognize the right to live in a clean environment as a personal right in this resolution, the ruling has implications for environmental protection and civil rights. It indicates that air pollution can be considered a threat to personal rights, which could lead to an increased number of claims concerning the protection of citizens' health and quality of life in the future.
The Supreme Court's resolution of May 28, 2021 (ref. III CZP 27/20) represents a significant step forward in understanding environmental protection in the context of civil law. Although the right to live in a clean environment is not considered a personal right, air pollution can impact other personal rights, such as health, that are subject to protection. This ruling may lead to more claims for the protection of health and other personal rights of individuals affected by environmental pollution and highlights the need for further action to protect air quality and the environment in Poland.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of May 13, 2025
author/editor of the series:
Be the first to receive our articles and legal alerts, straight to your inbox! Sign up for our newsletter by clicking the link or contact us at social@kglegal.pl to personalize your content.
