If injury is caused by a defective normative act, it may be unclear where to seek damages—from the State Treasury or from local government—particularly in cases where the actions of these defendants may not be regarded as unlawful.
Pursuing compensation from the State Treasury for loss caused by issuance of an unlawful judgment is predicated on obtaining a finding in an earlier proceeding that the judgment was unlawful. But the regulations governing how to obtain such a predicate ruling generate serious doubts.
Jak ocenić, czy postępowanie sądowe jest przewlekłe, i jak dochodzić odszkodowania, jeśli przewlekłość postępowania spowodowała szkodę.
The defectiveness (unlawfulness) of a tax decision isn’t enough. Injury must also be proved, and an ordinary causal link between issuance of the decision and the injury.
Under Art. 417 of the Civil Code, the State Treasury is liable for injury caused in exercise of public authority. It’s usually not too hard to determine whether the state is acting as a party to civil dealings and when it is exercising authoritative competencies. Nonetheless, there are some activities of public entities that are not clearly authoritative but should be deemed to be the exercise of public authority, the Supreme Court of Poland held in its judgment of 6 June 2014 (Case III CSK 211/13).
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that a commercial agent may retain the right to a commission if the client intentionally refuses to perform the contract because the principal’s attitude has caused the client to lose confidence in the principal. The ruling also clarifies doubts surrounding the effect that partial non-performance of the contract has on the agent’s commission.