There is no single legal act in Poland that unequivocally regulates the principles by which a property appraiser determines the value of real estate for the purposes of court proceedings. This matter falls within the realm of establishing facts, a task performed by the court either “ex officio” or based on evidence presented by the parties. At the same time, the expert witness’s opinion is utilized by numerous entities—primarily courts handling civil, criminal, and family cases, but also public prosecutor’s offices, bailiffs, bankruptcy trustees, and the police.
In court proceedings, determining the value of real estate is essential, particularly in the following types of cases:
- division of joint marital property,
- termination of co-ownership,
- division of an inheritance,
- transfer of ownership where a building has been erected on another party’s land,
- bankruptcy proceedings involving the sale of the bankrupt’s real estate,
- matters concerning fees for perpetual usufruct,
- enforcement proceedings against real estate.
Pursuant to the Regulation of the Minister of Justice of 24 January 2005 concerning court-appointed experts, in conjunction with Article 157 § 2 of the Act of 27 July 2001 – Law on the Structure of Common Courts, court-appointed experts are appointed at the regional court, with the authority to make such appointments vested in the president of that court. Experts are appointed for a five-year term, which expires at the end of the calendar year. An individual may be appointed as an expert if they possess specialized theoretical and practical knowledge in the specific field of science, technology, art, or craft—or any other skill—for which the appointment is to be made. Furthermore, the individual must provide a guarantee of the proper performance of an expert’s duties. Possession of such specialized knowledge must be demonstrated by means of documents or other evidence. It is the responsibility of the regional court president to assess whether the possession of specialized knowledge has been sufficiently demonstrated.
It should be noted that work is currently underway on a new act concerning court-appointed experts and expert-opinion institutions.
Property appraisers are appointed to serve as court-appointed experts for the purpose of property valuation. Under Article 7 of the Act on Real Estate Management of August 21, 1997, property appraisers are responsible for determining the value of real estate whenever such a determination is required. Consequently, conducting property valuation activities within the territory of the Republic of Poland is permissible only when such activities are performed by property appraisers (Article 174, paragraph 6 of the Act). In light of the foregoing, property appraisers constitute the only profession of „experts” within the Polish legal system authorized to determine the value of real estate. Pursuant to Article 191, paragraph 1 of the Act, the practice of the property appraiser profession is contingent upon obtaining state-issued professional qualifications granted by the competent minister. It should be noted that activities performed by property appraisers are subject to professional confidentiality (Article 175, paragraph 3 of the Act).
In court proceedings, the parties have the right to submit comments, inquiries, and objections regarding the opinion prepared by a property appraiser appointed by the court as an expert witness in the case. The primary objections raised by parties against expert opinions in civil proceedings concerning real estate valuation include:
- incorrect or incomplete description and characterization of the subject of valuation,
- calculation errors,
- clerical errors,
- flawed valuation methodology.
While addressing the objections listed in points 1 through 3 above does not require specialized knowledge, the issue is more complex regarding the objection indicated in point 4. It should be stressed that mathematical errors in opinions are becoming increasingly rare, as appraisers use spreadsheets for calculations. Although clerical errors remain relatively frequent, they generally affect only the overall assessment of the diligence with which the opinion was prepared; they typically do not impact the final valuation result—that is, the substantive assessment of the property appraiser’s position.
Objections concerning the valuation methodology adopted within the comparative approach constitute the largest share of challenges raised against expert opinions. Key objections in this category include: the improper selection of comparable transactions; an incorrect set of market characteristics differentiating prices within the pool of properties serving as the basis for valuation; and issues regarding the percentage weights assigned to these characteristics and their gradation (i.e., the assessment of these features). In some cases, objections also concern the failure to account for market price trends resulting from the passage of time—or, where no such price changes were found, the failure to comprehensively address this issue in the valuation report. The obligation to analyze price trends stems directly from the provisions of § 5 of the Regulation of the Minister of Development and Technology of September 5, 2023, on real estate valuation.
A relatively common objection raised against the opinions of expert property appraisers concerns the insufficient analysis and description of the local real estate market. However, the primary objection regarding property valuation opinions based on the comparative approach concerns the improper selection of comparable transactions; this is linked to another issue often described as a failure to observe the principle of transparency—specifically, the inability of the parties to verify the data. In its judgment of April 5, 2012 (case no. II CSK 369/11), the Supreme Court noted that the actual identification of comparable properties is not necessary to verify the correctness of the appraisal report and the expert’s opinion. A similar position is found in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) of July 11, 2016 (case no. I OSK 2471/14). Consequently, including any detailed data in this regard within the opinion is not required.
At the same time, it must be borne in mind that a property appraiser, when preparing an opinion in the form of a valuation report, is bound by legal regulations. Information obtained by a property appraiser in the course of their professional practice constitutes professional secrecy; consequently, as a general rule, such information may not be disclosed to third parties. The specific nature of the professional secrecy binding property appraisers stems from the fact that the information obtained during the valuation process comes from external sources rather than from the party commissioning the valuation. Such data originate primarily from entities other than the parties to the transaction. Access to this data occurs without the knowledge—or even the awareness—of those parties. In particular, this includes data derived from notarial deeds, land and mortgage registers, and documents held in records and registers maintained by government and local government authorities that are not fully accessible to the public. Therefore, when analyzing the real estate market and compiling a database of comparable transactions for the purpose of the opinion being prepared, a property appraiser must not disclose sensitive data—such as the exact addresses of the properties included in the comparison. The professional secrecy obligation of property appraisers must guarantee confidentiality. The fact that a valuation report is intended to reflect the valuation process in no way alters the obligation to maintain professional secrecy; yet, disclosing property addresses or the registration numbers of land parcels included in the valuation process would result in a breach of that obligation. Furthermore, considering that Article 175, paragraph 3 of the Act on Real Estate Management shall be deemed a mandatory provision; therefore, the objection that the exact addresses of the properties were not stated in the valuation report—allegedly in violation of the principle of transparency—is manifestly inconsistent with the property appraiser’s obligation to maintain professional secrecy. Consequently, for this reason as well, the objection cannot be considered well-founded.
Pursuant to Art. 154 para. 1 of the Act on Real Estate Management (hereinafter also referred to as the “Act”), the selection of the appropriate approach, method, and technique for property valuation is made by the property appraiser—the person exclusively authorized under Art. 7 of the Act to determine property value. Naturally, the decision regarding methodology is not entirely unfettered; it must take into account the purpose of the valuation, the type and location of the property, its designated use under the local spatial development plan, its condition, and available data on prices, income, and characteristics of comparable properties, all while remaining within the framework established by regulations. Nevertheless, the property appraiser—acting as an expert cognizant of the aforementioned determinants—is responsible for the correct selection of methodology in their work and bears liability for that choice. Indeed, in accordance with the position expressed in the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) judgment of May 20, 2021 (case no. I OSK 4117/18), „comparability”—within the meaning of Art. 4 point 16 of the Act—does not imply identical parameters. Instead, it signifies a sharing of essential market characteristics that have a fundamental impact on the property’s value. It is, therefore, a relationship based on similarity rather than identity. Determining which property characteristics are of the greatest significance in a specific case depends on the assessment of the appraiser, who possesses not only specific statutory qualifications but also professional knowledge regarding the factors influencing property value (NSA judgment of August 4, 2020, case no. I OSK 3563/18). Furthermore—and most importantly—it is the property appraiser who determines the market value of the property and, pursuant to Art. 154 para. 1 of the Act, is guaranteed the freedom to select the appropriate approach, method, and technique for the valuation.
In Article 4, point 16 of the Act on Real Estate Management, the legislator specified the characteristics required for a given property to be considered a „similar property.” It should be noted that, according to the statutory definition, a similar property need not be identical to the property being valued, but merely comparable. Thus, if a valuer identifies a basis for comparison between properties—for instance, those differing in location or intended use—such a property qualifies as a similar property. This is because valuers, possessing specialized knowledge, are able to compare them and make appropriate adjustments for any differences by applying suitable weightings and ratings to specific market characteristics.
The selection of properties for comparison is determined by the property appraiser, a choice driven by the appraiser’s specific professional expertise. As indicated by the Provincial Administrative Court (WSA) in Poznań in its judgment of August 29, 2023 (case no. I SA/Po 312/23), if properties can be compared across all characteristics influencing price, they are considered „similar” within the meaning of the statutory definition. However, a party’s priori assertion that a given property is not similar—or their own conception of what constitutes a similar property—does not serve as the standard for how administrative bodies and courts apply Article 4, point 16 of the Act on Real Estate Management. Subjective views held by a person lacking specialized knowledge regarding alleged methodological errors cannot serve as grounds to invalidate an expert appraiser’s opinion.
The Supreme Administrative Court ( Polish abbreviation “NSA”) expressed a similar position in its judgment of May 19, 2022 (case no. II OSK 1112/19), stating that while the selection of similar properties is subject to judicial review for legal compliance, this review excludes matters requiring the specialized knowledge possessed by a property appraiser.
In the view of many property appraisers, the difficulty of preparing opinions for court proceedings stems from the very nature of such proceedings, in which the parties represent conflicting interests. Nevertheless, given the significant importance of valuation reports in court proceedings—including the reliance placed on the reliability of their preparation—the parties may, through the court (provided the court deems it necessary), request a professional organization of property appraisers to conduct a substantive assessment of the report. This organization is required to evaluate the report against statutory criteria and established standards within a period not exceeding two months from the conclusion of the agreement for such an assessment. Indeed, Article 157 of the Act on Real Estate Management is not a provision intended to guarantee a party’s procedural rights, but rather a general rule governing the permissible procedure for the substantive verification of valuation reports (judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Kraków of June 4, 2020, case no. II SA/Kr 1278/19).
The legislature has ruled out the possibility of evaluating a valuation report based on another valuation report concerning the same property but prepared by a different appraiser. In civil proceedings, a valuation report submitted by a party is generally treated as a private document that may serve as evidence—but it is not equivalent to a court-appointed expert’s opinion commissioned by the court. It is therefore solely up to the court to evaluate the material and—in the event of doubts regarding the clarity, reliability, and accuracy of the property valuation—to refer the expert’s opinion to a professional organization for assessment or to commission an opinion from another expert.
A negative assessment of a valuation report by a professional organization’s review panel does not strip the document of its status as an opinion on property value; however, it may prompt further action by the court. Ultimately, the assessment of the opinion’s value as evidence remains the exclusive prerogative of the court. An opinion regarding the correctness of a valuation report’s preparation thus constitutes further evidence in the case. The court is obliged to substantively evaluate the entire body of evidence, including all opinions concerning the property valuation; where opinions diverge, the court cannot rely on just one of them without explaining and resolving the observed contradictions.
Parties to the proceedings may—and, in the author’s view, should—address expert opinions. This is their prerogative, particularly if the content indicates legal violations, incompleteness, a lack of clarity, or illogical reasoning in the expert’s position; however, lacking specialized knowledge, they should not challenge the chosen valuation methodology—the selection of which is the responsibility of the property appraiser pursuant to Art. 154 para. 1 of the Act on Real Estate Management. In accordance with Article 7 of the Act on Real Estate Management, the appraiser is exclusively authorized to determine the value of real estate. In other words, the parties may—and perhaps even should—formulate questions and point out shortcomings in the expert’s opinion in order to resolve any doubts, but they should not thereby question his knowledge and competence as a property appraiser. After all, as previously noted, the practice of this profession is regulated by statute.
