In the gloss to the decision of the Supreme Court of 29 June 2016, III CZP 25/16, the author critically assessed the opinion expressed therein that it is not possible to effectively pursue an action for restoration of possession (release of things) against a person who infringed possession if that person transferred ownership to another person during the lawsuit. Because contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, it should be found that the Defendant’s standing in such a situation is possible due to the norm contained in art. 192(3) of the civil Code. This provision also allows for issuing a judgment which would be effective and enforceable against the person to whom the defendant transferred possession during the lawsuit.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.