Abstract

In its resolution of 12 December 2012 (III CZP 81/12) the Supreme Court presented its view on the legitimacy of charging fees on simultaneous entry of the right of perpetual usufruct of land and the ownership title to the buildings thereon in the land and mortgage register. In Supreme Court’s opinion a separate fee laid down in separate regulations should be charged for each request. The above view was based on a finding that there are no grounds for undermining legitimacy of charging separate fees for entering the right of perpetual usufruct of land and the ownership title to the buildings by reference to specific relationships and natures of both rights. This position is groundless considering the role played in relation to one another by the right of perpetual usufruct of land and the ownership title to the buildings situated thereon. It is true that both rights are interconnected and non-existent in separate transactions, and therefore should be treated an and integral whole basing on the Act of 28 July 2005 on court costs in civil cases and a single court fee should be charged on their entry. This view is also supported by functional interpretation concerning the function, role and purpose to be met by a normative act. The basic role of the land and mortgage register proceedings is to ensure security of real estate transactions. The unification of court fees fro entry and the reduction of costs incurred by the parties is aimed at simplifying and accelerating the land and mortgage register proceedings, which is one of the pillars of that security. Therefore, excessive fiscality manifested in charging a double fee for entering those two rights is incomprehensible.