On 29 April 2022, in a case under III CZP 81/22, the Supreme Court, answering a legal question whether the mere introduction of a limited use area due to the impossibility of maintaining environmental protection standards against noise in connection with functioning of an airport under the provision of Article 135 para. 1 of the Environmental Protection Law may be regarded as a limitation of the manner of using real property, constituting an independent and sufficient basis for a claim for compensation for a reduction in the value of real property, the Court held that it did not and that only specific orders, prohibitions and recommendations addressed to owners of real property located in the limited use area may be regarded as limiting the manner of using real property.
The Supreme Court’s standpoint was expressed in connection with the limited use area established for an airport, but it has a broader meaning and also applies to other facilities generating an above-normative impact on the natural environment. It may contribute to making it more difficult for property owners to pursue claims and to limit the amount of such claims by closely linking the decrease in value with specific restrictions.