GLOSA do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 22 czerwca 2017 r., III CZP 24/17

Abstract

Article 2b of the Act on Formation of the Agricultural System of 11 April 2003 is the source of a wide range of interpretation discrepancies and practical problems. In the commented on resolution, the Supreme Court settled the issue of the sale of agricultural property by the buyer before the end of the period provided for in art. 2b para. 1 of the Act to a close person within the meaning of art. 2 point 6 of the Act, indicating that it does not require the consent of the court issued on the basis of art. 2b para. 3 of this Act. The position of the Supreme Court deserves approval. The solutions introduced so far are sufficient in the prevention of speculative risk and the restrictive interpretation of this provision would be disproportionate to the intended purpose. The resolution of the above-mentioned issue by the Supreme Court should be positively assessed, however, the wording of art. 2b of the Act is still a source of many interpretative difficulties that need to be resolved. This applies, for example, to the insufficiently clear drafting of art. 2b para. 1, an unclear interpretation of art. 2b para. 3 and the narrowed circle of close persons in the definition contained in art. 2 para. 6.