enforcement of claims
The state’s enforcement of epidemiological restrictions (commands and prohibitions), despite many doubts as to their constitutionality, currently constitutes lawful exercise of public authority. Nonetheless, even actions by the state with the blessing of the law may entail a risk of COVID-19 infection for doctors, nurses, police and others. Serious detriment to their health—or even death—as a result of infection may give rise to liability on the part of the State Treasury under the principle of equity.
Declaration of a state of epidemiological threat and then a state of epidemic, and other legal acts, entails not only introduction of commands and prohibitions in everyday and professional life but also various types of restrictions on business operations. Doctors may be directed to work in hospitals for infectious diseases. Businesses are saddled with new restrictions causing them to generate significant losses. Can damages be sought from the State Treasury due to these restrictions?
No one expects the Polish State Treasury to bear full responsibility for businesses’ losses due to the coronavirus epidemic. However, the regulations should provide some recompense for parties injured by the introduction of sweeping commands, limitations and prohibitions on business operations. This is required first and foremost by concern for the state of the national economy for which businesses are the driving force.
If execution or bankruptcy proceedings are commenced against the owner of leased or tenanted real estate, the lease or tenancy contract may be terminated early by the administrator or trustee. Rent paid in advance may then be deemed ineffective. How should lessees and tenants protect themselves when entering into a contract with an owner in poor financial condition?
The Supreme Court has held that in exceptional cases, the creditor’s conduct in enforcement proceedings will constitute an abuse of law justifying denial of the creditor’s right to execute an order. Therefore, the creditor’s inappropriate attitude may make it impossible to enforce a claim awarded by a final court decision.