Everything has its time and place. Pursuing claims in court also. 😉 One of the basic tasks of a professional attorney is to determine whether the time for pursuing these claims has not expired, and therefore - to use legal terminology - whether the claim has not become time-barred. If not, the court route is open. If so, our role is to warn the client that the lawsuit should not be filed because the lawsuit will most likely be dismissed, which generally entails the obligation to reimburse the costs of the proceedings to the opposing party.
The legislator regulates the basic limitation periods in Art. 118 of the Civil Code (CC). According to its content, unless a specific provision provides otherwise, the limitation period is six years, and for claims for periodic benefits (e.g. rent) and claims related to running a business - three years. The last day of the limitation period generally falls on the last day of the calendar year.
Due to the limitations of human imagination, the legislator is never able to imagine the full spectrum of possible situations. The legislator also suffers from difficulty in expressing his thoughts precisely. The content of provisions sometimes requires clarification in the literature or court decisions. One such case is the concept of "business related claims". Extensive arguments on this concept can be found in the judgment of the Supreme Court of September 9, 2021, file reference number I CSKP 78/21[1].
This court resolved a dispute regarding the refund of the administrative fee paid by the developer in connection with the removal of shrubs and trees as part of the preparation of the property for investment. The amount was significant, amounting to almost PLN 1,500,000. The fee was paid by the developer, after which the decision to impose it was annulled by the second instance authority. The developer then demanded a refund of the unduly paid fee. The courts of first and second instance agreed that this claim is related to running a business and is therefore subject to a limitation period of 3 years. This was an incorrect assumption, which was explained by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the fee paid was of a public law nature, in which the administrative body acted from a position of authority. The payment of the fee had no connection with the developer's status as an entrepreneur, but was the fulfillment of an order from the public authority, which granted itself the right to collect it. In such situations, however, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court excludes the qualification of the claim as related to business activity. Consequently, a general 6-year limitation period applies.
The Supreme Court also classified, for example, claims for the refund of unduly collected fees for issuing a vehicle card and for the refund of unduly collected surveying fees, even though they were paid in connection with running a business. Therefore, this is a consistent line of jurisprudence.
Claims related to running a business within the meaning of Art. 118 of the Civil Code covers in particular claims that the entrepreneur makes against his contractors. This is related to a more general tendency to place higher requirements on entrepreneurs, in particular in terms of quick and efficient pursuit of their compensation claims. The need to ensure the stability of professional legal transactions is also important. Such reasons do not exist in relations between an entrepreneur and state authorities with administrative powers, in which the entrepreneur is a weaker entity.
Therefore, effective recovery of this type of illegally collected fees is possible within six years from the date of delivery of the final decision of the second instance waiving the fee imposed. It should be emphasized that if such a decision is issued, you should not wait for the final decision of the case by the administrative court to file a lawsuit. In accordance with the standard of Art. 61 of the Act - Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, appealing against such a decision, in principle, does not suspend the execution of the final decision.
author:
Przemysław Apostolski – legal advisor
This entry contains general information about the legal issue discussed. It does not constitute legal advice or a solution to a specific case or legal problem. Due to the unique nature of each factual situation and the variability of the legal status, we recommend seeking legal advice from our law firm.
[1] Available in the Legalis legal information system.