August 19, 2025
Poland’s failure to adopt a clear, unified law on property restitution from the communist era has left the process mired in bureaucracy. Instead of straightforward justice, claimants are forced to navigate a maze of conflicting laws, ad hoc policies, and inconsistent court rulings - each case becoming its own uphill battle.
On paper, Poland guarantees protection of private property and, in 2009, signed the Terezin Declaration, pledging to support the restitution of assets lost during and after the war. In practice, however, that commitment has largely unraveled. The decisive blow came in 2021, when parliament amended the Administrative Procedure Code (Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) by introducing a statute of limitations on challenges to administrative decisions. From that point on, administrative decisions involving confiscations, expropriations, or nationalizations based on laws or decrees could no longer be overturned if more than 30 years had passed since they were issued. That change effectively slammed the door on restitution claims for property seized between 1945 and 1991. In theory, former owners and their heirs may still seek compensation, but this is even more complicated than recovery of the property itself and is subject to numerous conditions.
For families of former owners and Holocaust survivors who lost real estate in Poland during World War II or under communist rule, the only realistic way to recover property under current Polish law is by filing a petition to reopen court proceedings - but this applies only to cases in which ownership was lost through adverse possession following a court ruling. If the property was nationalized or confiscated through other means, the chances of recovery are very slim.
1. Why were so many properties nationalized by court rulings through adverse possession?
Under Polish law, an individual may acquire ownership of real property through uninterrupted, open, and exclusive possession for a statutory period - typically 20 years if acting in good faith, or 30 years if in bad faith (i.e., if the possessor is aware that the property belongs to someone else). The procedure is initiated by filing an application with a Polish court, and the proceedings are conducted in a non-adversarial manner. The applicant must demonstrate, through appropriate evidence, that the possession was continuous and exercised in an ownership-like manner for the required period.
Evidence may include documents such as utility bills, renovation records, and witness testimonies, as well as other proof of actual control and management of the property. The court examines the submitted evidence and, if the statutory conditions are met, issues a formal ruling confirming the acquisition of ownership. Without such a judgment, the possessor cannot claim legal title to the property. Importantly, the former owner (or his heirs, if deceased) must be notified of the proceedings.
During the communist era - and even for some time after its collapse in 1989 - applications for acquisition of ownership through adverse possession were frequently submitted as a means of simplifying property transfers, particularly in respect of buildings that had been abandoned. In practice, state representatives merely had to file an application for ownership and provide evidence that the property had remained unused for the requisite 20 or 30 years. In tens of thousands of such cases, the courts recognized adverse possession. Once a judgment was issued confirming acquisition, the original owner’s title was extinguished, and the new owner was entered into the land and mortgage register.
Owners who had emigrated from Poland faced particular disadvantages, as they had little or no ability to monitor, manage, or assert their rights in relation to their properties. This made it easier for others to occupy the properties and later acquire ownership through adverse possession. In many cases, the absent owners were not even notified of the proceedings, which facilitated the state's ability to finalize the takeover process.
It can now be observed that, in the 1960s and 1970s, adverse possession proceedings were often conducted in a superficial manner and with procedural shortcuts. They were treated largely as formalities, and little attention was paid to the fact that fundamental principles of judicial procedure - such as the right to proper representation - were routinely disregarded. Today, this gives a chance to effectively challenge the adverse possession process, since the proceedings should not take place in the absence of the defendant.
2. How to start a process of restitution of property in Poland?
If you are a former property owner seeking to recover lost assets in Poland, the first and most important step is to determine the legal grounds on which ownership was lost. This will influence whether recovery is possible and which legal procedures may apply.
b) Importance of the land and mortgage register
3. Historical background in the period 1945 - 2021
To understand the complexity of the restitution process in Poland, it is important to go back to its origins in 1945.
c) Before 1945, the majority of agricultural land and forests in Poland were privately owned, mainly by noble families and large landowners. After the Soviet Army entered Polish territory in 1944, the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) issued the Decree on Agrarian Reform of 6 September 1944. This decree introduced radical land redistribution in Poland. Estates larger than 50 hectares (or 100 hectares in the western provinces) were expropriated without compensation. The land was parceled out to small farmers, the landless, and agricultural laborers, fundamentally transforming property structures in Polish villages.
d) Nationalization extended beyond land. In 1945, the Bierut Decree transferred ownership of most property in Warsaw to the municipality.
f) After 1989, the practice of taking over someone else’s property continued in a new form. Before 1989, individuals were not permitted to acquire tenement houses or large properties, but after the transition this became legally possible. From the 1990s onward, individuals and municipalities could once again become active owners of property. For former owners and their heirs, however, this opened a new chapter of difficulties, as unresolved issues from the 1940s and 1950s became even more complicated than before.
g) In 2021, Poland passed amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code (Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) introducing a statute of limitations on challenges to administrative decisions, including those concerning post-war confiscations and nationalizations. The key change was that administrative decisions (such as confiscations, expropriations, or nationalizations) may no longer be annulled if more than 30 years have passed since their issuance - even if the original decisions were made in gross violation of law. The new time-limit effectively closed the restitution route for properties taken by administrative decisions in the period 1945-1991. Families of former owners and Holocaust survivors who had pursued claims over seized properties and were able to prove gross violations of law were abruptly cut off from any chance of recovering their properties.
h) The majority of buildings in Polish towns after 1945 were not nationalized and remained in private hands. For properties whose owners left the country or died during the war, the regulations allowed the state to take over ownership based on adverse possession by court ruling.
i) Nationalization by court ruling through adverse possession was never intended as a formal tool for the state to take over properties, but in practice it turned out to be a useful solution when authorities could not find an appropriate regulation.
4. Recovering property lost through adverse possession by court ruling
Recovering property lost through adverse possession in Poland is not an easy task because the court ruling grants the adverse possessor strong legal protection. Under Articles 172–176 of the Polish Civil Code, a person may acquire ownership of real estate after uninterrupted possession for 20 years in good faith, or 30 years in bad faith. An additional possibility existed under the 1946 decree on abandoned and ex-German property, which also operated as a form of adverse possession. Once a court confirms adverse possession, the previous owner’s rights are definitively extinguished, and Polish law does not provide compensation or indemnification to the former owner.
If there were serious errors during the adverse possession proceedings before the Polish court such as lack of proper representation, the heirs of the former owner may file a petition to reopen the court proceedings.
If the adverse possession judgment was issued following serious procedural errors - such as lack of proper representation of the original owner or their heirs - the affected parties may file a petition to reopen the proceedings. Under Article 401(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, reopening is possible if a party was deprived of the opportunity to take action due to a breach of law, including lack of representation.
The petition to reopen must be filed within three months from the date the party becomes aware of the grounds for reopening, Crucially, there is no overarching time limit that would prevent reopening a case simply because the original judgment was issued many decades ago. The decisive factor is when the party discovered the new evidence or ground for reopening. This means that even judgments from the 1950s or 1960s can potentially be challenged if new grounds are uncovered today.
5. What needs to be done?
Steps for potential claimants:
6. Conclusion
Recovering property in Poland as a former owner is often challenging, and the outcome largely depends on the legal circumstances under which the property was lost. The land and mortgage register is the essential starting point for any such effort, as it provides transparency regarding current ownership and insight into past transactions. While administrative confiscations and expropriations (whether based on laws or decrees) are rarely reversible, cases involving adverse possession based on a court ruling may allow for corrective action - particularly if serious errors were made during the original proceedings.
Fortunately for families of former owners, adverse possession proceedings conducted in communist Poland during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were often superficial and relied on procedural shortcuts. These proceedings were frequently treated as mere formalities, with fundamental principles of judicial procedure - such as the right to adequate legal representation - routinely ignored. This situation now creates an opportunity to challenge the validity of adverse possession, since court cases should never have moved forward without the defendant (i.e., the former owner) or their lawful heirs being properly served with the statement of claim at their domicile address. Ensuring that the opposing party receives the statement of claim is a fundamental principle of due process, as it guarantees the right to a fair defense.
If the petition to reopen the old adverse possession case is successful, it does not automatically mean the verdict will be reversed, but it ensures a fair trial can finally take place.
On paper, Poland guarantees protection of private property and, in 2009, signed the Terezin Declaration, pledging to support the restitution of assets lost during and after the war. In practice, however, that commitment has largely unraveled. The decisive blow came in 2021, when parliament amended the Administrative Procedure Code (Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) by introducing a statute of limitations on challenges to administrative decisions. From that point on, administrative decisions involving confiscations, expropriations, or nationalizations based on laws or decrees could no longer be overturned if more than 30 years had passed since they were issued. That change effectively slammed the door on restitution claims for property seized between 1945 and 1991. In theory, former owners and their heirs may still seek compensation, but this is even more complicated than recovery of the property itself and is subject to numerous conditions.
For families of former owners and Holocaust survivors who lost real estate in Poland during World War II or under communist rule, the only realistic way to recover property under current Polish law is by filing a petition to reopen court proceedings - but this applies only to cases in which ownership was lost through adverse possession following a court ruling. If the property was nationalized or confiscated through other means, the chances of recovery are very slim.
1. Why were so many properties nationalized by court rulings through adverse possession?
Under Polish law, an individual may acquire ownership of real property through uninterrupted, open, and exclusive possession for a statutory period - typically 20 years if acting in good faith, or 30 years if in bad faith (i.e., if the possessor is aware that the property belongs to someone else). The procedure is initiated by filing an application with a Polish court, and the proceedings are conducted in a non-adversarial manner. The applicant must demonstrate, through appropriate evidence, that the possession was continuous and exercised in an ownership-like manner for the required period.
Evidence may include documents such as utility bills, renovation records, and witness testimonies, as well as other proof of actual control and management of the property. The court examines the submitted evidence and, if the statutory conditions are met, issues a formal ruling confirming the acquisition of ownership. Without such a judgment, the possessor cannot claim legal title to the property. Importantly, the former owner (or his heirs, if deceased) must be notified of the proceedings.
During the communist era - and even for some time after its collapse in 1989 - applications for acquisition of ownership through adverse possession were frequently submitted as a means of simplifying property transfers, particularly in respect of buildings that had been abandoned. In practice, state representatives merely had to file an application for ownership and provide evidence that the property had remained unused for the requisite 20 or 30 years. In tens of thousands of such cases, the courts recognized adverse possession. Once a judgment was issued confirming acquisition, the original owner’s title was extinguished, and the new owner was entered into the land and mortgage register.
Owners who had emigrated from Poland faced particular disadvantages, as they had little or no ability to monitor, manage, or assert their rights in relation to their properties. This made it easier for others to occupy the properties and later acquire ownership through adverse possession. In many cases, the absent owners were not even notified of the proceedings, which facilitated the state's ability to finalize the takeover process.
It can now be observed that, in the 1960s and 1970s, adverse possession proceedings were often conducted in a superficial manner and with procedural shortcuts. They were treated largely as formalities, and little attention was paid to the fact that fundamental principles of judicial procedure - such as the right to proper representation - were routinely disregarded. Today, this gives a chance to effectively challenge the adverse possession process, since the proceedings should not take place in the absence of the defendant.
2. How to start a process of restitution of property in Poland?
If you are a former property owner seeking to recover lost assets in Poland, the first and most important step is to determine the legal grounds on which ownership was lost. This will influence whether recovery is possible and which legal procedures may apply.
a) Distinguishing between types of loss of ownership
- Administrative decisions (confiscation, nationalization, expropriation):
Many properties in Poland were confiscated during the communist period through administrative measures, such as expropriation for “public purposes” or full nationalization based on newly adopted laws or decrees. In most such cases, the possibilities for recovery are severely limited. Present Polish law generally upholds these historical acts, even if they were unfair by today’s standards. Compensation mechanisms are minimal and often symbolic. Legal challenges are possible only in exceptional circumstances, usually when the decision was issued in gross violation of applicable law at the time.
- Adverse possession (court ruling):
If property was lost through adverse possession (known in Polish as zasiedzenie or przemilczenie), the legal situation is different. Adverse possession occurs when another party occupies the property for a statutory period of time (commonly 20 or 30 years, depending on circumstances or even 10 years under the 1946 decree on abandoned and ex-German property, which also operated as a form of adverse possession) and then obtains a court ruling that transfers ownership. In some cases, if the procedure leading to the adverse possession judgment was defective - for example, if the rightful owner was not properly notified - there may still be a possibility to challenge the ruling and seek to have ownership restored.
b) Importance of the land and mortgage register
Poland maintains a nationwide land and mortgage register system (księgi wieczyste), which is designed to ensure transparency and reliability in property ownership. This system plays a key role in asset recovery:
- verification of current ownership: Only the person formally entered in the register is recognized as the legal owner. Even long-standing informal arrangements or private agreements cannot substitute for registration.
- tracing past transfers: The register contains historical records of entries and changes in ownership, which may reveal when and how the title was transferred, whether through administrative act, sale, inheritance, or adverse possession.
- evidence for legal action: In a dispute or recovery claim, the entries in the register are crucial pieces of evidence. Courts and administrative authorities rely heavily on what is shown in the register.
3. Historical background in the period 1945 - 2021
To understand the complexity of the restitution process in Poland, it is important to go back to its origins in 1945.
a) After May 1945, the communists took power in Poland primarily because of the Soviet Union’s military dominance. The new Polish state established that year - later known as the People’s Republic of Poland - had little continuity with pre-war Poland. The Polish government-in-exile remained in London, with the legitimate president and prime minister, while power within Poland was seized by Soviet-backed appointees. A new constitution was introduced, along with a series of new laws and a sweeping program of nationalization. Agricultural land and forests were confiscated from pre-war owners under decrees (without compensation), while larger businesses and industrial facilities were taken over under the Law on the Nationalization of Core Sectors of the National Economy of 1946.
b) Poland’s territory was also significantly altered: its eastern regions, including Vilnius and Lviv, were annexed by the Soviet Union, while Poland gained new western territories.
c) Before 1945, the majority of agricultural land and forests in Poland were privately owned, mainly by noble families and large landowners. After the Soviet Army entered Polish territory in 1944, the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) issued the Decree on Agrarian Reform of 6 September 1944. This decree introduced radical land redistribution in Poland. Estates larger than 50 hectares (or 100 hectares in the western provinces) were expropriated without compensation. The land was parceled out to small farmers, the landless, and agricultural laborers, fundamentally transforming property structures in Polish villages.
d) Nationalization extended beyond land. In 1945, the Bierut Decree transferred ownership of most property in Warsaw to the municipality.
e) In 1989, Poland underwent a profound political transformation. The shift brought about a market economy and initiated reprivatization. The nationalizations of the 1940s had long-lasting consequences, including contentious and complex reprivatization efforts after 1989. This process proved very slow and controversial, largely due to the legal and administrative difficulties of reversing post-war expropriations.
f) After 1989, the practice of taking over someone else’s property continued in a new form. Before 1989, individuals were not permitted to acquire tenement houses or large properties, but after the transition this became legally possible. From the 1990s onward, individuals and municipalities could once again become active owners of property. For former owners and their heirs, however, this opened a new chapter of difficulties, as unresolved issues from the 1940s and 1950s became even more complicated than before.
g) In 2021, Poland passed amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code (Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) introducing a statute of limitations on challenges to administrative decisions, including those concerning post-war confiscations and nationalizations. The key change was that administrative decisions (such as confiscations, expropriations, or nationalizations) may no longer be annulled if more than 30 years have passed since their issuance - even if the original decisions were made in gross violation of law. The new time-limit effectively closed the restitution route for properties taken by administrative decisions in the period 1945-1991. Families of former owners and Holocaust survivors who had pursued claims over seized properties and were able to prove gross violations of law were abruptly cut off from any chance of recovering their properties.
h) The majority of buildings in Polish towns after 1945 were not nationalized and remained in private hands. For properties whose owners left the country or died during the war, the regulations allowed the state to take over ownership based on adverse possession by court ruling.
i) Nationalization by court ruling through adverse possession was never intended as a formal tool for the state to take over properties, but in practice it turned out to be a useful solution when authorities could not find an appropriate regulation.
4. Recovering property lost through adverse possession by court ruling
Recovering property lost through adverse possession in Poland is not an easy task because the court ruling grants the adverse possessor strong legal protection. Under Articles 172–176 of the Polish Civil Code, a person may acquire ownership of real estate after uninterrupted possession for 20 years in good faith, or 30 years in bad faith. An additional possibility existed under the 1946 decree on abandoned and ex-German property, which also operated as a form of adverse possession. Once a court confirms adverse possession, the previous owner’s rights are definitively extinguished, and Polish law does not provide compensation or indemnification to the former owner.
If there were serious errors during the adverse possession proceedings before the Polish court such as lack of proper representation, the heirs of the former owner may file a petition to reopen the court proceedings.
If the adverse possession judgment was issued following serious procedural errors - such as lack of proper representation of the original owner or their heirs - the affected parties may file a petition to reopen the proceedings. Under Article 401(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, reopening is possible if a party was deprived of the opportunity to take action due to a breach of law, including lack of representation.
The petition to reopen must be filed within three months from the date the party becomes aware of the grounds for reopening, Crucially, there is no overarching time limit that would prevent reopening a case simply because the original judgment was issued many decades ago. The decisive factor is when the party discovered the new evidence or ground for reopening. This means that even judgments from the 1950s or 1960s can potentially be challenged if new grounds are uncovered today.
5. What needs to be done?
Steps for potential claimants:
- Access the register: Any interested party can request information from the land and mortgage register (by applying at the local court or through the online system). Identifying the property’s unique register number (numer księgi wieczystej) is essential.
- Legal review: Once the entries are obtained, a detailed analysis by a lawyer experienced in Polish property law can clarify the nature of the ownership transfer and assess whether legal remedies remain available.
- Possible remedies: If the transfer was through adverse possession, a petition to reopen proceedings or annul a defective judgment might be possible. If through administrative decision, the scope for restitution compensation is limited but not always excluded, depending on the period and grounds of the decision.
- Time sensitivity: Polish law imposes strict deadlines and statutes of limitation. The sooner a former owner investigates the property’s status, the stronger the chances of pursuing effective remedies.
6. Conclusion
Recovering property in Poland as a former owner is often challenging, and the outcome largely depends on the legal circumstances under which the property was lost. The land and mortgage register is the essential starting point for any such effort, as it provides transparency regarding current ownership and insight into past transactions. While administrative confiscations and expropriations (whether based on laws or decrees) are rarely reversible, cases involving adverse possession based on a court ruling may allow for corrective action - particularly if serious errors were made during the original proceedings.
Fortunately for families of former owners, adverse possession proceedings conducted in communist Poland during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were often superficial and relied on procedural shortcuts. These proceedings were frequently treated as mere formalities, with fundamental principles of judicial procedure - such as the right to adequate legal representation - routinely ignored. This situation now creates an opportunity to challenge the validity of adverse possession, since court cases should never have moved forward without the defendant (i.e., the former owner) or their lawful heirs being properly served with the statement of claim at their domicile address. Ensuring that the opposing party receives the statement of claim is a fundamental principle of due process, as it guarantees the right to a fair defense.
If the petition to reopen the old adverse possession case is successful, it does not automatically mean the verdict will be reversed, but it ensures a fair trial can finally take place.
About the Author
Founder and Managing Partner
phone: +48 602 352 580
Read also
January 02, 2026
Shelf Company or Brand New Company in Poland: Which...
Establishing a company in Poland can be done in several ways, and acquiring a ready-made (shelf) company is one alternative to incorporating...
Read more
December 29, 2025
How Foreign Investors Can Incorporate a Polish Limited...
If you’re thinking about starting a company in Poland as a foreigner, there’s one thing you should know first: Poland is one of the most...
Read more
December 08, 2025
WEBINAR: B2B or Employment? How to Avoid Reclassification...
About the webinar In 2026, Polish businesses will face heightened scrutiny from PIP and ZUS audits, with misclassification risks...
Read more