Over half a million zlotys in fines for an entrepreneur from Nowogrodziec municipality. “Heartlessness.” Inspector responds

We received the following report:

I would like to inform you that on October 23 this year, the District Building Supervision Inspector in Bolesławiec, MSc Eng. Piotr Żak, imposed a fine of approximately PLN 520,000 on a seventy-year-old pensioner running a sole proprietorship repairing cars. (This concerns Prusinowski Car Service in Godzieszów – ed. istotne.pl). The fine was imposed for the alleged delay in demolishing a farm-and-workshop building that was an unauthorized construction, where the pensioner runs his business.

The report, which was not sent by the person directly concerned, stated that “official heartlessness in our country has not died out and is doing quite well.” It also said that the inspector’s actions amounted to “destroying a person in the most classic manner.”

The person who filed the report also emphasized that Edward Prusinowski did not challenge the court ruling. He also hired a company that was supposed to prepare a safe demolition of the structure.

The whole story began approximately five years ago. At that time, Edward Prusinowski, the owner of Prusinowski Car Service, received an order to demolish the structure. He appealed to the court. Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Administrative Court, which ruled that the “shed” nevertheless had to be demolished. – The District Building Supervision Inspector gave me a deadline: seven days – says E. Prusinowski. – I went to an architect, who told me I had to prepare a demolition plan.

The entrepreneur emphasizes that he asked for time until spring so that he could move his property and protect it from the weather. (He was considering buying a suitable tent.) – I need a roof over my head to run my business. It stood there for 10 years and did not bother anyone – he adds.

A resident of Nowogrodziec municipality on the fine exceeding half a million zlotys. – This is a below-the-belt blow; they are trying to destroy me.

He adds: – The company was growing, and it is still growing. But I do not know whether it will recover after such a blow. They are doing everything to put me out on the street. With one stroke of a pen, everything can be destroyed.

The company owner admits that he did in fact build the “shed” illegally, because it was on agricultural land. However, he says that for years he heard from officials of Nowogrodziec Municipality that the zoning plan would be changed. Yet this has not happened so far. (Last week we asked Nowogrodziec Municipality about the entire matter; we are still awaiting the officials’ response.)

The entrepreneur, as he emphasizes, also intervened in his case with Bolesławiec County and with a member of parliament from Bolesławiec. Without success.

Mr. Edward recalls that he came to Lower Silesia from Pomerania. There was terrible unemployment in the region at the time. That is why he started his own business. In his opinion, some residents, especially one of his neighbors, still consider him an outsider and do not like the fact that his company is growing. Hence the complaints.

The District Building Supervision Inspector in Bolesławiec, MSc Eng., architect Piotr Żak, explains:

By a decision dated July 15, 2019, the District Building Supervision Inspector in Bolesławiec ordered Mr. Edward Prusinowski to demolish the car workshop building “Prusinowski Car Service,” located in Godzieszów, Nowogrodziec municipality. This decision was upheld by the Lower Silesian Voivodeship Building Supervision Inspector in decision no. 999/2019 dated August 19, 2019. By order no. 1500/2019 dated December 3, 2019, that authority suspended enforcement of its own decision until the complaint was resolved by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław. In a judgment dated January 28, 2020, case file no. II SA/Wr 696/19, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław dismissed the obligated party’s complaint against the decision of the second-instance authority. The ruling became final on May 24, 2023; as of that date, the second-instance authority’s order suspending enforcement of the decision also ceased to have effect.

It is untrue that the existence of the aforementioned unauthorized construction bothered no one. The authority took its first action in the matter in May 2018, following a request from neighbors complaining about the nuisance.

The obligated party should therefore have been aware of the consequences of violating construction law as early as 2018. It should be emphasized that the authority gave him the opportunity to legalize the unauthorized construction, setting a one-year deadline in total for submitting the necessary documents. The obligated party did not take advantage of the opportunity to legalize it.

The judgment dismissing the obligated party’s complaint was issued on January 28, 2020; from that time until today, the obligated party has taken no action related to commencing the demolition.

The obligated party was reminded of the need to fulfill the obligation in a letter dated September 8, 2023; despite this, the obligated party took no action related to commencing the demolition.

By an order dated October 23, 2023, the authority imposed a fine of PLN 519,821.00 on the obligated party. The amount of the fine is not discretionary. Pursuant to Article 121 § 5 of the Act on Enforcement Proceedings in Administration, in the case of an obligation to carry out the forced demolition of a building or part thereof, the amount of the fine is the product of the built-up area of the building or part thereof covered by the forced demolition order and 1/5 of the price of 1 m² of usable floor area of a residential building, announced by the President of Statistics Poland under separate regulations for calculating the guarantee premium for holders of housing savings books.

It should be recalled that the subject of the demolition is not a “shed,” but a car workshop building with a built-up area of 517.75 m², causing significant nuisance to the neighborhood.

Importantly, applying a fine to compel compliance does not create any additional costs for the obligated party beyond those associated with carrying out the order. It is up to the obligated party whether the obligation imposed on him will be fulfilled and, consequently, whether he will bear the cost of the fine imposed.

The order set an additional 21-day deadline for carrying out the demolition; meeting it will allow him to avoid paying the fine.

The obligated party has declared voluntary demolition of the structure in question since 2018. For five years, he took no action related to commencing the demolition. At the enforcement stage, he has shown only sham actions which, in his view, would allow him to continue using the structure and avoid liability for subsequent years. (All emphasis is by Inspector P. Żak – ed. istotne.pl).

He adds: – In summary, the decision ordering the demolition is legally effective; in such a situation, the enforcement authority is required by law to enforce its provisions. In this case, we are dealing with a final decision, and therefore the obligation arising from its content must be carried out as long as the decision remains legally effective.