Zasiedzenie i jego skutki z perspektywy konstytucyjnej. Rozważania w przededniu uchwały składu 7 sędziów Sądu Najwyższego (III CZP 103/22)

The article attempts to answer the question of whether the Polish statutory regulation of acquisitive prescription is compatible with the Polish Constitution. Several possible variants of the understanding of ownership under the Polish Constitution are presented. Then . taking into account the various interpretative variants . an interpretation of the statutory regulation of acquisitive prescription was made. As a result of these considerations, it is argued that acquisitive prescription should take into account the interest of the previous owner and, despite the loss of title to the property, he should obtain the value of the lost right. Moreover, third party rights limiting the ownership should not be extinguished as a result of acquisitive prescription. The Polish legislator . differently than the Draft Common Frame of Reference . is silent on both issues. The inspiration for the article is the issue soon to be tackled by the Polish Supreme Court, which concerns whether, as a result of acquisitive prescription, the previous owner loses the claims to which it was entitled, for remuneration for non-contractual use of its property (inter alia against the previous holder who is the current owner of the property). Moreover, the article expresses the view that the Polish regulation on the statute of limitations of a claim for recovery of a movable thing, which the owner is entitled to against the possessor in bad faith (who, according to Polish law, cannot acquire ownership of the moveable thing by acquisitive prescription), is unconstitutional.