How does the Polish court determine if a claimant's use was open and notorious in adverse possession claims?

Polish courts assess whether a claimant's use of property was "open and notorious" in adverse possession cases by evaluating visibility, noticeability and the owner-like behavior. Courts require proof that the claimant’s use was publicly observable and aligned with typical ownership activities, like maintaining the property (e.g., renovations, repairs), regular use (e.g., residing in an apartment, farming land, or installing permanent structures like fences) or financial responsibility (e.g., paying utility bills, property taxes).
 
In general terms, adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows someone to acquire title to another person’s real property by possessing it in a certain manner for a long period of time. In Poland, the requirements for adverse possession (zasiedzenie) are set out in the Polish Civil Code. A person claiming adverse possession must prove actual, open, notorious, hostile and exclusive use of the property for at least 20 or 30 years. In other words, the use of the property must be obvious enough to put the true owner on notice and must continue uninterrupted for a long period without the true owner’s permission. Adverse possession cases could be dangerous for property owners – if you ignore a trespasser or an encroachment for too long, you could lose your property. The law is designed to ensure that property is actively managed and that long-term neglect does not block productive use by others.
 
Courts require a claimant to prove each element of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence – a high standard of proof that demands strong, credible, and persuasive evidence for every required element.
Simply occupying or maintaining a property is not sufficient to establish adverse possession; all statutory elements must be met and proven in court. People who left Poland long ago, or heirs living abroad, often face significant difficulties in defending against adverse possession claims. If the abandoned property is not managed, visited, or supervised, it is easier for someone else to occupy and use it as their own, potentially meeting the requirements for adverse possession. This is a serious threat. The absence of active management and supervision by owners or heirs living abroad creates a legal environment in which adverse possession claims in Poland are more likely to succeed, potentially resulting in the permanent loss of property rights. The heirs living abroad should actively take legal steps and defend the ownership title.
 
Elements of adverse possession
 
To succeed in an adverse possession claim, the claimant must establish all of the following elements, typically for a statutory period (which is 20 or 30 years depending on good or bad faith):
 

• Actual possession: the claimant must physically use the property as an ordinary owner would, given the nature and character of the property.
• Exclusive possession: the claimant must possess the property exclusively, not sharing control with the true owner or the public.
• Open and notorious possession: the use must be visible and obvious, such that a diligent owner would be put on notice that someone else is asserting ownership.
• Hostile (adverse) possession: the possession must be without the permission of the true owner and in a manner contrary to the owner’s interests.
• Continuous possession: the claimant’s possession must be uninterrupted for the entire statutory period.

 
Burden of proof
 
The burden is on the claimant to prove every element by clear and convincing evidence. Courts will not assume facts in favor of the adverse possessor; strong, factual proof of long-term acts of ownership is required.
If even one element is not established to this standard, the claim will fail. Open and notorious possession of the property is usually the most difficult element to prove.
 
Mere occupation or maintenance is insufficient
 
Simply occupying or maintaining a property – such as mowing the lawn or making minor repairs – does not, by itself, satisfy the strict legal requirements for adverse possession. The occupation must meet all elements listed above, and the acts must be significant enough to demonstrate ownership in a manner that is open, notorious, exclusive, actual, and hostile. Evidence usually considered by Polish courts is as follows:
 

• Witness testimony: neighbors or others who observed the claimant using the property can provide evidence that the use was visible and consistent with ownership.
• Physical evidence: thotographs, property improvements, utility bills, or other documentation showing regular, open use.
• Absence of owner’s permission: The court distinguishes between open use with the owner’s permission (which does not qualify) and open use without permission (which may qualify).

 
Practical implications
 
Because adverse possession can result in the loss of property rights for the original owner, courts scrutinize these claims closely and require clear, convincing evidence for each element. Owners are advised to monitor their property and address unauthorized use promptly to avoid adverse possession claims.
 
Woźniak Legal possesses the expertise and experience necessary to effectively assist you. Our lawyers can assist you in verifying the status of the property and effectively support you in resolving your case.
Please contact us on office@woznialegal.com.
You can also email me directly on grzegorz.wozniak@wozniaklegal.com.