Abstract

The paper addresses the issue of legal grounds for dismissing an application for the establishment of an easement of necessity in situations where the lack of adequate access to a public road is a result of actions or investment plans of the owner of a landlocked property. The article presents the evolution of interpretation of Article 145 §1 of the Civil Code - from the former, purely economic approach favoring the economically optimal use of land, to the contemporary approach that guarantees much stronger protection of the property rights of neighboring properties. The text formulates a thesis that the inconveniences resulting from the location of a property should primarily encumber its owner. The author indicates that in the case of the so-called self-isolation of land, the claim for the establishment of an easement exists objectively, but - typically - it should not enjoy legal protection due to the abuse of process (Article 5 of the Civil Code). Application of Article 5 of the Civil Code is also postulated in factual circumstances involving a deliberate separation of a property without road access, e.g., on account of acquisitive prescription. On the other hand, in situations where the owner seeks to change the purpose of the land, and the current access of the property to a public road is inadequate for these new intentions, the assessment of the „adequacy” of access must consider the existing character of the land and local conditions. This means that in the case of purely investment-related needs that exceed the existing socio-economic purpose, the claim under Article 145 § 1 of the Civil Code may not arise at all.