The dispute concerns a former agricultural cooperative whose land and buildings were purchased and divided into plots by several people, including entrepreneur Arkadiusz Kołodziej. His company owns the yard and the three farm buildings surrounding it. The fourth structure is an independent, two-story residential building with several apartments. There is also an extension next to it—the premises of Ms. Danuta’s company, which initiated the dispute with the entrepreneur over access to the residential building.
After a 10-minute walk around the property at No. 54 in Raciborowice Górne, it becomes clear that the residential building can be reached on foot and by car via two public roads, bypassing the company’s yard: an asphalt municipal road and a hardened dirt private road with an easement connecting it to the municipal road. This can be seen in the photograph.
District Court judge Ilona Kata inspected the property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. She ordered that, for the duration of the proceedings, a third access road and footpath to the condominium units be marked out across the company’s yard.
The case has been ongoing since May 2021. For more than two years, the court has questioned witnesses, gathered evidence and searched for court-appointed experts in surveying and road construction to assess the possibilities for optimal access to the residential building from a public road. The court is now awaiting the experts’ opinions. They are expected to be prepared around February 2024.
During this time, the entrepreneur marked out a road through his company’s premises, in accordance with the order. He installed remote-controlled gates. He distributed remotes to the residents so they could freely drive across his yard while he could restrict unauthorized access to the company’s property. He is also paying fines imposed by the court because Ms. Danuta complains that, despite this, access to her premises remains difficult. The fines the entrepreneur is required to pay already total more than PLN 40,000.
Danuta’s logic: they promised access would remain as it was
Ms. Danuta feels wronged in this entire matter. She once had very good relations with Arkadiusz Kołodziej and was able to park her car in the large yard together with the other residents of the building. Residents had unrestricted access through the yard until 2020.
After Arkadiusz Kołodziej purchased the yard, convenient parking was no longer possible because the entrepreneur closed it off. Since then, residents have used the road around Kołodziej’s company to reach their apartments, but Ms. Danuta considers it inadequate. She explains that the road is not paved and that part of it belongs to another private company, while only part belongs to the municipality. She also describes the background to the dispute, in which, from her point of view, the key issue is the verbal agreements she allegedly made with the property owners.
“There used to be a psychiatric hospital ward here in Bolesławiec, at the State Agricultural Farm,” Danuta says, recounting the history of the place. “When the transformations began, around 1989 or 1990, the ward and the farm were closed. A Production Cooperative was established, based in Warta Bolesławiecka, but they could not compete and sold everything. We bought the apartments as private property. We were employees and co-owners of the cooperative. When I asked the cooperative’s president about access to the building, he said that nothing would change and that, just as we had driven up to the block before, we would continue to do so,” the woman adds.
It is true that the building’s main entrance is architecturally located on the side facing the yard, but the residents can also freely enter the building from the other side.
“At first, Arkadiusz Kołodziej only leased the storage units in the courtyard because he had nowhere to keep jars,” Danuta explains how ownership of the former cooperative’s property subsequently changed. “When it was decided that the storage units and the yard would be sold to a company from Olszanica, and it turned out that the company did not need them, I told Arkadiusz that if he had nowhere to keep his jars, he could buy the storage units. I also reminded him that we were guaranteed access from the yard. He promised that things would remain as they were. I did not know that they would close off our access,” the woman explains.
The woman also describes how she learned about the change of plans and the closing of the yard.
“A neighbor came with some documents and said that, from the asphalt municipal road, a small wall could be demolished, the bushes cleared and a parking lot built,” the woman says. “I told him there was no problem. I only asked them to give me time because I had to replant the rhododendrons and remove the bushes. I then called the County Office and asked what the rules were for building a parking lot if I ran a business. I was told that I had to maintain a seven-meter distance from the window. I did the calculations and it was impossible to build a parking lot here because there was not enough space. In addition, there is a difference in ground levels, and there is also a sewage manhole, so I do not know what it would be like if they leveled the ground for the parking lot,” Ms. Danuta explains.
She adds that the wall that would have to be demolished to give her access to the paved municipal road is historic, and the heritage conservator did not approve its removal. She says she has such a decision from the conservator, but does not show it; despite promising to email it to the editorial office, we have not received it. According to information from the lawyer representing Arkadiusz Kołodziej, the Voivodeship Heritage Conservator determined that the wall could be partially dismantled if an expert concluded that the condominium’s plot could be connected to the road.
We ask Ms. Danuta how she imagines the dispute ending. She replies that she hopes the court’s judgment will restore the residents’ unrestricted access from the front of the building—that is, through Arkadiusz Kołodziej’s company yard.
Absurd for the entrepreneur: there are two other roads, so why a third one through the yard?
Arkadiusz Kołodziej and his wife Anna confirm that before 2001 there was access to the condominium building from the yard, but that was when they had not yet developed their business. Pallets now stand in the yard, forklifts operate there, and trucks enter to unload goods.
“The gate has always been here. We had to close the entrance to the company’s premises because we keep goods here,” says Anna, explaining why the gates to the yard are locked. “There were thefts. Every resident of the building received a remote control for the gate and can drive up to the building along the designated route. But the residents use the road that bypasses our company anyway, because it is more convenient for them,” Ms. Anna adds.
The company yard ceased to be the courtyard of the residential building when it was purchased by Arkadiusz Kołodziej. What is more, there had never been any road leading through the yard to that building. Therefore, when the court ordered the entrepreneur to secure an “access road and footpath,” he had to cut out a strip along two utility rooms to minimize the danger to people moving around the yard.
“I cannot imagine the court persisting with something like this and continuing to make life so difficult for the entrepreneur,” says Anna. “We have two children and the company is our only source of income. Since the court issued its order securing passage and vehicle access across the company’s property, our company has suffered losses. For example, there have been police callouts because a truck entered the company’s premises. One of our suppliers sent us a letter canceling deliveries because he was summoned by the police in his area to give a statement
because our neighbor filed a report. It is hard for me to imagine all this. Our property directly borders the municipal road, and the only dispute is about removing a section of fencing to drive up to the building itself. We are not harming anyone; we operate like everyone else. Every building has its own independent entrance and exit. There is a problem with one building because one woman has blocked all the work. My husband even bought an excavator and wanted to demolish part of the fence and level the ground at his own expense, so rubbish bins could be placed there and there would be no problem. However, Ms. Danuta called the police on us because she came up with the idea that the fence was a historic wall,” the entrepreneur’s wife adds.
The condominium residents are surprised that the case has continued for so long.
“It should be like this: we all bring our documents, we have four meters of land next to the building, the rest belongs to him (Arkadiusz Kołodziej—editor’s note), and that is the end of it. Instead, the case has been dragging on in court for three years. People are losing their health and money,” says one of the residents.