Iwona Kasperek: articles by this author
Since 19 September 2020, acquirers of real estate have been able to transfer a building permit to themselves without the consent of the prior investor. Does this change facilitate implementation of development projects by property buyers?
The solutions provided for in the Anti-Crisis Shield are intended to activate extraordinary instruments supporting businesses during the pandemic. Can changes in the running of time limits provided for by law, including proceedings before public administrative bodies and administrative courts, be regarded as such a solution?
An amendment to the Construction Law of 27 March 2003 that came into effect as of 11 July 2003 was intended to simplify building permit proceedings, and thus speed up investment projects. One of the ways in which this was to be done was reducing the number of entities that were parties to the proceedings. A party is entitled to take an active part in the proceedings, and can therefore file motions or appeals. This clearly prolongs the proceedings.
Change of the purpose of perpetual usufruct: Is it necessary to conclude an agreement and pay compensation?
Local governments and authorities representing the State Treasury accuse developers of planning projects or making other changes in the current manner of use of real estate inconsistent with the purpose for which perpetual usufruct was established. Then they offer the perpetual usufructuary an agreement changing the use of the property in exchange for compensation. Is there any justification for such actions?
People applying for the division of real estate are often requested to supplement the application with a permit for location of a driveway, in order to prove the existence of direct access to a public road. But is the authority’s request legally justified?
Acquirers of real estate often apply to the administrative authorities for a certificate on assertion of reprivatisation claims. Does this practice serve any purpose?