Poles from the People’s Republic of Poland on purchased land. Could the network operator have acquired the right to use the property by adverse possession?

An investor who purchases land on which a power line, gas pipeline or water main is situated often finds no easement in favour of the network operator recorded in the land register. However, this does not necessarily mean that the operator has no right to use the property.

The key question in this case has once again been referred to the Supreme Court.

Question from Szczecin By a ruling of 8 September 2026 (ref. II Ca 1328/24), the Regional Court in Szczecin asked the Supreme Court whether, prior to 3 August 2008 – that is, before Article 305¹ –305⁴ of the Civil Code, it was possible to acquire a land easement by adverse possession with terms corresponding to those of a transmission easement, and whether the period prior to that date counts towards the time required for adverse possession. The case is pending under ref. no. III CZP 38/26, before a panel of three judges.

Background to the dispute

• These are the same questions that were referred to a panel of seven judges in 2025 (III CZP 9/25). No ruling was made – following the withdrawal of the appeal on points of law, the proceedings were discontinued on 16 December 2025.
• In its judgment of 2 December 2025 (P 10/16), the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that such an interpretation was unconstitutional, but the judgment has not been published in the Journal of Laws. The court in Szczecin considers it non-binding and tends to follow the Supreme Court’s previous line of reasoning, which allows for acquisitive prescription.
• The Supreme Court’s case law was long divided on this issue: as recently as July 2025, the Supreme Court allowed such acquisitive prescription (I CSK 1030/24), whilst in March 2026 it ruled it out (II CSKP 1045/24).

What does this mean for an investor?

• The absence of an entry in the land register does not determine the outcome. Acquisition by adverse possession takes place by operation of law, and the court merely confirms it. If the Supreme Court reverts to its previous position, the operator may have a title to the strip of land beneath the power line, and the restrictions on development there will be permanent – without any compensation for the creation of the easement.
• If adverse possession has not taken place, the owner may demand the creation of a transmission easement in return for compensation, as well as compensation for non-contractual use. As a general rule, the claim for the period prior to acquisition lies with the seller; it is therefore advisable to address this issue in the contract.
• As part of due diligence, it is worth checking whether an expropriation order has been issued in respect of the equipment, for example, during the period of the People’s Republic of Poland. Such an order confers title on the operator, irrespective of any dispute regarding acquisitive prescription.
• Until the matter is resolved, it is prudent to assess both scenarios and to structure the seller’s representations and pricing mechanisms accordingly.