Odpowiedzialność gminy w związku ze zmianą lub uchwaleniem miejscowego planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego na tle orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego

Abstract

The aim of the article is to present the essence and function of the municipality responsibility to the owner (perpetual usufructuary) of the real property related with the adoption or amendment of the local master plan pursuant to Section 36 of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development of 27 March 2003. The aim of the Author is also to highlight essential interpreting problems concerning Section 36 of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development which have been revealed under the ruling of the Supreme Court. The paper describes in detail which legal and financial results does the local master plan bring for a person when coming into force. The Act determines the extent of the allowable entitlement of the owner of the real property to make use of their right, but it also may influence the value of the real property included in such a plan. As a result, entering into force of the local master plan may affect the owner’s right to make use of the real property and decrease its value. The above implications constitute the basic reason for ascribing responsibility to municipality pursuant to Section 36 of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development. In attempt to analyze the legal character of the municipality responsibility pursuant to Section 36 of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development, it was also referred to rules of the Supreme Court. According to that some essential interpreting doubts were highlighted which were evident in the rules of the Supreme Court concerning the local master plan. They referred to: 1) the concept of damage and ways of assessing its value, 2) the stipulation for units entitled to assert their claims pursuant to Section 36 (1 and 3) of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development, 3) interpretation of requirements for municipality responsibility.