Abstract

The planning activity of a municipality may lead to an adverse effect on the exercise of an ownership (perpetual usufruct) right. The mechanism of recompense arising out of Art. 36 of the Spatial Planning and Development Act is intended to remove or alleviate those sovereign actions of municipalities Those provisions anticipate several different claims relating to the most typical forms of infringement of interest of the owner or perpetual usufructuary of a property in connection with the planning activity of a municipality. An entitled person may request compensation for the actual loss incurred or buyout of the property of a part thereof (those claims may be satisfied by offering a substitute property), and when that person sells the property he or she may request the municipality to make up for the reduction in its value. The publication presents one of the disputable issues connected with the application of the above mentioned provisions. The intention is to establish whether the claim under Art. 36.3 of the Spatial Planning and Development Act can be made also in case a part of property is sold. It is also important to clarify interrelationships between Art. 36.3 of the Spatial Planning and Development Act and the regulations concerning similar issues, that is Art. 98 of the Real Property Management Act.