Medycyna Ogólna i Nauki o Zdrowiu (Dec 2022)

Retrofitting a state legal entity under art. 51a of the Real Estate Management Act based on the example of the Independent Public Health Unit – legal issues and case study

  • Patryk Tomasz Wicher,
  • Michał Mółka,
  • Andrzej Śliwczyński,
  • Marcin Kaim

DOI
https://doi.org/10.26444/monz/156375
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 28, no. 4
pp. 333 – 340

Abstract

Read online

Introduction and objective In 2017, a regulation enabling the retrofitting of property rights from the State Treasury to state legal persons and state organizational units (Art. 51a of the Real Estate Management Act) was introduced in Poland. The policymakers intended to expand the catalogue of rights to real estate by allowing the equipment or retrofitting of property to state legal persons. The purpose of this article was to determine how the above-mentioned regulation is applied in praxis. Material and methods The authors presented a case study exemplifying the procedures necessary for retrofitting the Independent Public Health Unit, Health Farm, Ministry of Interior and Administration, in Krynica-Zdrój retrofitting of property rights under Art. 51a of the Real Estate Management Act. Additionally, a cross-study was conducted concerning the application of Art. 51 based on a survey addressed to entities that have applied for property rights assignment to investigate the success rate, usefulness, and difficulties related to the procedure. Results The research showed an excessive length of the conducted proceedings for equipment of property rights, which was partly due to factors beyond the control of the authority deciding on granting ownership of the property rights. Most often, the refusal to grant ownership resulted from inability to indicate a real estate that would meet the criteria of the applying entities. In praxis, mainly the transfer of ownership rights to (1) applicants who had already used a given property; or (2) applicants who have indicated the exact property that they would like to receive was successful. Conclusions The analyzed regulation has gained popularity. However, an intervention on the part of the legislator to strengthen the position of the applicant is needed. For example, it is necessary to indicate the maximum time public administration has for deciding on retrofitting of property rights. Otherwise, the regulation will not fulfil the purpose of enabling further development of entities applying for retrofitting of property rights.

Keywords