Acquisition of the perpetual usufruct right by way of prescription. Critical remarks

Abstract

The institution of prescription was invented and perfected in Roman law, and was later incorporated into most modern legal systems. It was introduced into the Polish legislation by a decree on property law of 11 October 1946. Following the Austrian civil code, the decree provided for an institution unknown to Roman law, which was holding of a right, as well as a possibility
of a prescription of a limited right in rem. Neither of the two rights has been included in the Civil Code currently in force in Poland. The only exception is its Article 352 which provides for an easement (servitude). As far as prescription is concerned, it may be only be applied to a thing in the autonomous possession of the owner. Again, Article 292 of the Civil Code providing for the prescription of an easement is an exception. In 1975, the Supreme Court passed a resolution on the inadmissibility of the prescription of perpetual usufruct rights. The court found that there is a legal loophole in this respect, and since perpetual usufruct is similar to ownership, an analogy can be applied to the former. Both views expressed by the Supreme Court are wrong. A perpetual usufruct lost in consequence of a long period of its non-use can be restored under several provisions of the Civil Code. However, the perpetual usufruct right and the ownership right are little similar to each other. A comparison of these rights shows similarities only in six, but differences in eighteen cases. Neither is it possible to adopt the analogy of Article 292 of the Civil Code. The provisions of this Article constitute an exception and according to the rule known under Roman law as well as Polish law: exceptiones non sunt extendendae. The above resolution of the Supreme Court had subsequently become the basis for later rulings and a number of other judgments have been delivered in which the court adopted a view of the existence under Polish law of the possibility of holding a right by prescription. However, since it is not possible to create an institution unknown in a given legal order simply by analogy, it ought to be considered that by introducing the possibility for the right to perpetual usufruct to prescribe, the Supreme Court has done what the legislator alone can do.