case law

id : 20526

id: 20526

Order of the Supreme Court of Poland

 dated 5 April 2019

Case No. I CSK 130/18

Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:

Applicant  A. M., operating business activity under the business name A., applied on 18 November 2016 for an entry, in the land and mortgage register, in her favour of a pre-emptive right to six business premises described in detail, established under a lease agreement concluded for 10 years from 29 February 2011 until 28 February 2021 between Z. C., as one of the co-owners and a proxy of other co-owners of the property – as the lessor and the applicant – as the lessee.

The court referendary of the District Court in R. in the order dated 7 March 2017 dismissed the application, because they found that copies of documents certified as true copies by a notary public could not be a basis for an entry, because they did not meet the requirements of Art. 31 of the Act on Land and Mortgage Register and Mortgage of 6 July 1982 (consolidated text: 2018Journal of Laws Dz.U., item 1916, as amended), i.e. they were not documents with a notarized signature, admissible as a basis for an entry if the regulations do not provide a different form of the document.

As a result of the applicant’s complaint against this ruling to which she enclosed the documents indicated in the application in the original with signatures certified by a notary public, the District Court in R. also dismissed the application.

A. M. filed an appeal to the Regional Court in R., but the Court decided to dismiss it.

Then the applicant filed a cassation appeal to the Polish Supreme Court. She alleged that the material law had been violated, i.e. Art. 678 § 1 of the Polish Civil Code had not been applied, Art. 32 (2) sentence 1 of the Act on Land and Mortgage Register and Mortgage had been misapplied and Art. 6269 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code had been violated. In the cassation appeal A. M. demanded that the challenged ruling be revoked in its entirety and that this ruling be changed by making an entry of the pre-emptive right, alternatively she demanded that the case be reheard by the Regional Court in R. and demanded participants of legal proceedings to pay costs of proceedings in both instances and in the cassation proceedings.

The Polish Supreme Court dismissed the case and found that in the proceedings the aforementioned provisions had not been violated.

Excerpt from the text of the court’s ruling:

[The Purchaser] is not (…) bound by the arbitration agreement made in the lease agreement (…).

scroll up