Neighbours of a restaurant in Bolesławiec have been engaged in a lengthy dispute with its restaurateur. They believe that the bar hall on Starzyńskiego Street was built contrary to the design and partly on their plot. We wrote about it in the article Prosecutor’s Office investigates expansion of a well-known restaurant in Bolesławiec.
– The restaurant owners sought permission to expand the dining hall and received it – their neighbour explains. – The permit included restrictions because of the proximity of the plot boundaries. There was to be a fire-resistant wall and other safeguards. The investor crossed the boundary because they built an entirely different building from the one for which they had received permission – the woman adds. She and her neighbours filed an application to annul the decision granting permission to use the hall.
Building supervision inspectors (provincial and chief) refused to initiate proceedings. They stated that only the investor had the right to apply in such a case. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw agreed with this decision.
What did the Supreme Administrative Court rule?
The Supreme Administrative Court set aside the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court and the decisions of both authorities. It found that in this case the parties to the proceedings could not be limited to the investor because there were doubts as to whether the construction was legal.
The Supreme Administrative Court’s reasoning states that if a building was erected contrary to the permit (for example, on someone else’s plot or with significant changes to the design), people whose rights may be violated (for example, owners of neighbouring plots) have the right to demand that the decision granting permission to use it be annulled. The building supervision authorities could not refuse to initiate proceedings by relying solely on the provision stating that the investor is a party to the proceedings.
What does this mean?
The case will be reconsidered. This time, the inspectors must recognise that the neighbours have the right to be parties to the proceedings and may demand that the permit be annulled. The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed an important principle: if the legality of construction is in doubt, the investor is not the only party with a say in the use of the building.