In spring 2024, the owner of the ground-floor premises informed residents of the Asnyka 18 homeowners’ association in Bolesławiec about plans to rent the premises for a restaurant operated by Vietnamese tenants. To obtain the association’s consent to open a food-service establishment, he declared that he would build an external chimney and bring gas to the premises, which had not previously had such an installation. The residents agreed to the changes, believing that the investment would bring benefits and increase the property’s value.
Renovation Behind the Wall and a Gas Leak
Renovation work began in April 2024 and was carried out mainly by the tenants’ crew. Several incidents occurred during the renovation. The most serious took place on July 1, 2024, when a serious gas leak was detected from a shared, old gas pipe supplying three stairwells. As a result of the failure, the gas was immediately shut off, and 24 apartments in the three stairwells were deprived of gas for three months. The homeowners’ association had to replace the entire installation, at a cost of approximately PLN 150,000. The food-service premises were also connected to the new system.
Grand Opening and the Death of a Neighbor
The restaurant began operating on November 15, 2024, and intense cooking smells began appearing in the apartments when it opened. On November 17, a caregiver found a resident and his cat dead in one of the apartments at Asnyka 18; both had been alive the previous day. Police officers at the scene suggested that the other residents buy carbon monoxide detectors, but the prosecutor’s office did not test the deceased man’s blood for CO. In the following weeks, carbon monoxide detectors in several apartments repeatedly went off, causing concern among the residents.
One of the residents alerted the inspector about the carbon monoxide detectors going off by sending emails. According to her account, the inspector did not respond to the messages, and the restaurant continued operating as before.
The First Evacuation
On February 4, 2025, a CO concentration of up to 916 ppm was recorded in one of the apartments, forcing the fire service to immediately shut off the gas both in the apartments and in the restaurant. An inspection by chimney sweeps and the property manager revealed that old ducts with numerous openings had been concealed beneath the lowered ceiling of the food-service premises. A large kitchen exhaust hood, operating without an adequate air supply, drew air from the flue shafts, causing combustion gases from gas heaters to flow back into the apartments.
Before the building inspector issued a decision banning the use of gas in the restaurant, he repeatedly delayed, according to the residents, arguing that he needed “everything on paper.” It was only on February 6, 2025, that he issued a decision with immediate enforceability. Despite the ban, the premises continued operating that same evening—residents recorded guests at tables and the kitchen in operation. When asked why, a waitress replied: “Our owner worked it out with the inspector so that we can fry until eight p.m.”
Further inspections and expert reports revealed new facts, and the conflict between the residents, the premises’ owner and the building inspector intensified. Some premises still cannot use gas heaters or the bathrooms on the top floor, and the homeowners’ association is demanding that the ground-floor premises be fully separated from the building’s vertical service shafts.
It should be added that when the hood stopped operating, the detector alarms stopped as well.
The Case Goes to the Prosecutor’s Office
The residents filed a report with the prosecutor’s office, accusing the premises’ owner of exposing people to danger and the building inspector of failing to perform official duties. In mid-April 2025, a court-appointed expert visited the premises. During the inspection, it was found that openings previously discovered in the chimneys had been bricked up and that a new opening had been drilled in the premises’ bathroom to improve the draft—something the residents interpreted as an attempt to destroy evidence.
The restaurant’s operations were ultimately suspended. Guests are no longer received on the premises; Vietnamese people who had previously run the kitchen slept on the floor between boxes placed on mattresses.
Prosecutor’s Office Drops the “Endangerment” Thread
On June 23, 2025, the District Prosecutor’s Office in Bolesławiec discontinued the investigation into exposing the residents of Asnyka 18 to the direct danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm (Article 160 of the Criminal Code). The justification stated that, despite the irregularities uncovered, the elements of a prohibited act had not been met.
The prosecutor’s office relied, among other things, on an expert opinion concerning gas installations and ventilation. The expert indicated that carbon monoxide could have entered the apartments as a result of negative pressure generated by the mechanical ventilation of the food-service premises, but also pointed to problems within the apartments themselves, including insufficient air supply and overly airtight window joinery.
In the prosecutor’s assessment, the condition of “directness” of the danger required by the Criminal Code was lacking.
Residents’ Appeal
The residents disagreed with the decision. On June 26, 2025, they filed an appeal, accusing the prosecutor’s office of overlooking key circumstances. They pointed out that the food-service premises, in their view, had not been properly adapted for operating a kitchen, and that combustion gases flowed back only when the mechanical exhaust was operating. They also argue that very high CO concentrations were recorded in the apartments and that children were present in the building.
The residents also challenge some of the findings concerning alleged ventilation defects in the apartments, claiming that the expert relied on a chimney-sweep report which, in their view, did not reflect the actual condition of the installation.
Inspector Case Discontinued and Another Appeal
At the same time, the prosecutor’s office discontinued proceedings concerning possible failure by the Poviat Building Supervision Inspector to perform his duties (Article 231 of the Criminal Code). On June 27, 2025, the residents filed another appeal, pointing, among other things, to delays in the proceedings, a lack of response to reports that CO detectors were going off and, in their view, an insufficient explanation of the role of the food-service premises in the entire incident.
Voivodeship Inspector Overturns the PINB Decision
The case also continued within the administrative oversight system. On July 23, 2025, the Lower Silesian Voivodeship Building Supervision Inspector overturned in full the decision of the Bolesławiec PINB and referred it back for reconsideration. It concerned orders and bans imposed on some apartments in the building at Asnyka 12, including a ban on using bathrooms and an obligation to install additional ventilation ducts.
The WINB found that although irregularities had been identified, the case files did not sufficiently demonstrate why the most stringent measures had been applied, including immediate enforceability. It noted that the justification for the decision referred to the death of a resident at Asnyka 18, but the administrative documentation lacked an expert opinion that would unequivocally link the events.
Complaint by Residents of Asnyka 10–19
On August 8, 2025, residents of the buildings at Asnyka 10–19 filed a complaint with the Voivodeship Building Supervision Inspectorate. They accused the poviat inspector of actions which, in their view, led to decision-making chaos, restrictions on the use of the apartments and shifting responsibility from the food-service premises onto the residents.
The complaint also contains allegations concerning the inspector’s relationship with the owner of the food-service premises. These are, however, claims made by the residents which, at the current stage, have not been confirmed by legally final findings of the authorities.
The Dispute Continues
Although the restaurant’s operations have been suspended and the hood has stopped operating, the conflict has not ended. Administrative and supervisory proceedings are ongoing.
For the residents of Asnyka 18, the case is no longer solely about one restaurant, but about the question of institutional responsibility and the limits of safety in a multi-unit residential building. They are still awaiting final decisions.