Violation of the personal rights of the housing community management board in Poland – limits of acceptable criticism of flat owners

Violation of the personal rights of the management board of a housing community is a problem that is increasingly arising in disputes between flat owners and community authorities, particularly in the context of criticism of the management board’s actions or omissions related to the management of the common parts of the property. The basic (though not the only) legal mechanism aimed at protecting personal rights, such as good name, reputation, dignity or trust necessary to perform functions in the management board of a housing community, is Article 24 of the Polish Civil Code. According to this provision, a person whose personal rights are threatened by the actions of another may demand that such actions be discontinued, unless they are unlawful. In the event of an infringement that has already occurred, the entitled person is entitled to claim the removal of its effects, in particular by the perpetrator of the infringement submitting a statement with appropriate content and in an appropriate form.

Our experience shows that, against the backdrop of disputes arising within housing communities and the development of social media, this issue has become particularly important in recent years. The activities of housing community management boards are very often the subject of harsh assessments, accusations and sometimes public criticism from individual property owners and members of housing community councils, i.e. persons whose purpose is to support the work of the housing community management board (as discussed in more detail in this publication).

Criticism of housing community boards is sometimes expressed in letters addressed directly to the board, but also at housing community meetings, in electronic correspondence, and, increasingly, in the public sphere – on internet forums and social media, which can make it extremely damaging and reach a wide audience.

The most common allegations against housing community management boards include, in particular, claims that the board:

• selected contractors (e.g. construction companies) based on unclear or non-transparent selection criteria,
• acted contrary to applicable law, including by tolerating theft or engaging in corrupt practices,
• illegally took over or disposed of the housing community’s financial resources,
• concluded agreements unfavourable to the community, including without proper economic or legal analysis,
• illegally took over part of the common property or led to its actual appropriation,
• made decisions in violation of applicable procedures, in particular by omitting the required resolutions or without observing the principles of collegiality,
• prevented individual members of the management board or owners of premises from participating in the work of the management board,
• exposed the community to negative legal consequences, for example by unjustifiably refusing to allow a renovation company onto the property,
• demonstrated a lack of competence in organising renovations and maintaining common property elements such as chimneys, greenery or basement rooms.

As a rule, the above-mentioned (or similar) statements, if they are untrue or formulated in a manner that exceeds the limits of acceptable criticism, may lead to a violation of the personal rights of members of the housing community’s management board, and thus to claims on the part of the housing community’s management board. These statements allege improper, dishonest or unlawful performance of duties, undermining the credibility and trust necessary for the exercise of management functions. As a result, they lead to a decline in the reputation of the housing community’s management board in the eyes of the owners of the premises. The purpose of the cited provision concerning the violation of personal rights is precisely to counteract such situations.

At the same time, it is clear that not every criticism of the activities of the housing community’s management board will constitute a violation of personal rights. Polish courts rulings consistently indicate that persons performing public or quasi-public functions, which include members of the housing community management board, must, as a rule, expect a wider range of permissible criticism. However, the line between legitimate, socially justified criticism and unlawful violation of personal rights is often thin and requires a detailed analysis of the specific facts in each case.

In this article, taking into account Polish courts rulings, legal doctrine and practical experience, we have undertaken a practical discussion of the following issues:

• When is criticism of the actions or omissions of a housing community management board justified and does not violate personal rights?
• Criticism of the management board of a housing community in the event of a failure to respond to a query from a flat owner
• Criticism of the actions of the management board of a housing community in the event of a delayed response to a query from a member of the community
• Criticism of the management board of a housing community for providing selective or incomplete answers
• Criticism of the decisions of the housing community management board as unreasonable or uneconomical and violation of personal rights
• Is the housing community management board obliged to respond to every letter from a property owner?
• When does criticism of the housing community management board exceed the limits of acceptable expression?

When is criticism of the actions or omissions of the housing community management justified and does not violate personal rights?

Case law concerning violations of the personal rights of members of housing community (and cooperative) management boards indicates that in some cases criticism of actions by a member of a housing community (or housing cooperative) may be justified. Explaining this position, the Polish Courts argue that the very fact of serving as a member of the management board of a housing community results in a narrowing of the scope of protection of their personal rights.

In performing their duties, members of the management board of a housing community do not act as private individuals, but as persons performing public (official) functions, for whom the limits of permissible criticism are broader than for persons not performing public functions. Persons performing public functions are subject to special social scrutiny and should be prepared for the fact that their actions may be subject to public criticism by members of housing communities. This stems from the very nature of public functions, which are by their very nature public and subject to scrutiny by members of housing communities, the media and supervisory authorities. This means that in many cases, criticism of the actions of the housing community’s management board, even if expressed in a harsh or unfavourable manner, may not constitute a violation of their personal rights. Of course, the criticism must relate to their public activities, i.e. the management of the housing community, and not to their private lives.

A practical example from Polish case law:

“(…) the status of the plaintiffs as members of the housing community’s management board reduces the scope of protection of their personal rights. They acted, in a sense, as public officials, and the scope of permissible criticism is broader in relation to such persons. In certain situations, doctrine and case law allow for the primacy of legitimate public interest over the need to protect the personal rights of persons whose activities are of a public nature. In such situations, criticism is permissible and even necessary if it is reliable and factual” (judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal in Krakow, 1st Civil Division, of 30 June 2015, ref. no. I ACa 543/15).

A similar position is taken in legal doctrine, where it is argued that “persons performing public functions are exposed to more intense social scrutiny, which results from the nature of their functions. Criticism of the actions of such persons in the performance of their functions does not violate their personal rights, provided that it is not defamatory and does not affect their private life. If the criticism takes the form of personal attacks or interferes with their private life, it may be considered a violation of personal rights” (Commentary on the Polish Civil Code, ed. K. Pietrzykowski, vol. I, Legalis legal service).

When assessing a potential violation of personal rights, it should always be remembered that in such cases, a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the specific facts, including the content, form and context of the statement and its purpose, is of decisive importance. However, it seems that the situations described below may generally constitute justified criticism.

Criticism of the housing community management board in the event of failure to respond to a query from a property owner

In practice, in order to effectively exercise their rights, property owners (and in particular members of the housing community council) should expect the housing community management board to respond adequately to their queries and requests. Although the provisions of the Act on Ownership of Premises do not explicitly indicate the management board’s obligation to respond to a letter from a member of the housing community, it seems that this obligation arises indirectly from:

• Article 27 of the Polish Act on Ownership of Premises, according to which every owner of a premises has the right and obligation to cooperate in the management of the common property,
• Article 29 of the Polish Act on Ownership of Premises, which provides, among other things, for the right of every owner of a premises to control the activities of the management board.

It therefore appears that, in accordance with the above regulations, the management board of a housing community cannot ignore letters and enquiries from members of the housing community and has the right to express disapproval of both the actions and inaction of the management board. In particular, this may apply to situations related to matters important for the day-to-day functioning of the common property, for example financial issues, matters related to the modernisation of the property, and important contracts concluded by the housing community.

In the absence of answers to questions concerning such issues, criticism of the housing community’s management board, even if expressed in a blunt manner, serves a control function with regard to the management board’s activities, as well as a protective function in the context of the interests of the entire housing community. It is important to note that when expressing criticism, a member of the housing community does not act solely on their own behalf, but in the interest of all residents, i.e. in the public interest.

A practical example from Polish case law:

‘The dissemination in the press of true information about individual facts or recurring events that affect or may affect an unspecified group of people or the whole of society and which, from the point of view of that group or the whole of society, deserve support or criticism, should be considered an action in the name of a legitimate social interest.’ (judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of 21 May 2014, ref. no. V ACa 237/14)

Criticism of the actions of the housing community management board in the event of a delayed response to a community member’s enquiry

Blunt criticism of the actions or omissions of the housing community management board may also be justified in a situation where the management board responds to a community member’s enquiry with a significant delay. In the case of certain issues related to the functioning of the housing community, it is not only the content of the response, its substantive and comprehensive nature, that will be important, but also the time at which it is provided to the member of the housing community. This is because if the response is sent too late, it may in practice deprive the member of the housing community of a real opportunity to react to possible irregularities on the part of the management board, and in extreme cases may even be equivalent to no response at all.

For example, the management board may plan to conclude a construction contract that is financially significant for the housing community in a given financial year. After learning about the management board’s plan, a member of the community asks a question about, for example, why a cheaper offer was not selected or why a tender was not conducted. The management board responds to the question after a long time, for example six months later, after the contract has already been performed. As a result, the member of the management board (as well as the other residents) no longer has any influence on the conclusion of the contract and, therefore, on the decision directly affecting their financial interests. In such situations, a delay in responding may justify criticism of the management board that does not infringe on personal rights, given that the failure to provide timely information prevents the full exercise of ownership rights and effective control of the management board’s activities by a member of the housing community or the housing community council.

Criticism of the housing community management board for providing selective or incomplete responses

As a rule, criticism of the actions and/or omissions of the housing community management board will also be permissible when the management board provides residents with incomplete answers, i.e. when the information provided to members is incomplete, selective, partial or does not address all the relevant issues raised by the owner of the premises. In such cases, members of the community may feel that their questions, comments and concerns have not been adequately addressed, which justifies expressing disapproval of the management board’s actions, which should not violate personal rights.

Criticism of the decisions of the housing community management board as unreasonable or uneconomical and violation of personal rights

It seems that criticism of the actions of the housing community management board that does not infringe on personal rights may also be justified in situations where the decisions taken by the management board appear unreasonable or uneconomical from the point of view of the financial interests of the housing community. This will apply in particular to cases where, in the opinion of the person criticising the actions of the management board, there are reasonable doubts as to whether the financial resources of the housing community are being spent in a purposeful, reasonable and proportionate manner in relation to the intended benefits. It seems that criticism may take on an intense form in a situation where the management board of the housing community fails to provide the owner of the premises with relevant financial documents, analyses or studies that could justify the decisions taken by the community.

For example, grounds for objective criticism that does not infringe on personal rights may arise when community funds are allocated to renovations or investments that are not objectively necessary or serve only a narrow group of residents, without demonstrating that they are in the interest of the housing community as a whole. Similarly, criticism may be justified, for example, in the event of procedural irregularities, such as failure to conduct a tender or compare proposals from several contractors, and limiting oneself to selecting a single entity without a transparent justification for the selection. In such situations, criticism of the management board, if formulated in a factual manner, based on facts, and with the language of the statement meeting cultural standards, may constitute an exercise of the right to control the activities of the management board and protect the financial interests of the community, and thus fall within the limits of permissible criticism.

A practical example from Polish case law:

‘The protection of the public interest may constitute a ground for excluding the unlawfulness of a violation of personal rights if the action that is the subject of the dispute was intended to reveal important public issues and not to attack a specific person personally’ (Supreme Polish Court judgment of 22 February 2011, ref. no. I CSK 106/10).

Is the management board of a housing community obliged to respond to every letter from a property owner?

Of course, the limits of permissible criticism cannot lead to abuse or be reduced to absurdity – criticism should remain proportionate, factual, appropriate to the circumstances and directly related to the performance of the management board’s functions and the functioning of the housing community. At the same time, it should be emphasised that the obligation of the housing community management board to respond to letters from flat owners is not absolute. In particular, the management board cannot be required to respond to every letter, especially in a situation where a member of the community sends numerous, repetitive or obviously unfounded inquiries that do not concern matters relevant to the functioning of the common property or go beyond the scope of the management board’s competence.

In such situations, the lack of a detailed response from the management board cannot be automatically classified as unlawful omission, nor can it justify allegations of violation of personal rights. The limits of the right to information and control of the management board’s activities must be assessed taking into account the principles of proportionality, rationality and the good of the housing community as a whole.

When does criticism of the housing community’s management board exceed the limits of acceptable speech?

Polish Court rulings emphasise that it is important that the form of expression, even when it is harsh or forceful, does not exceed accepted cultural norms, rules of social coexistence and general linguistic norms. Therefore, it is unacceptable in any situation to use profanity, invective or expressions that accuse members of the management board of committing crimes, in particular by using terms such as ‘thieves’ or ‘fraudsters’, if this is not supported by final Polish Court rulings. Such statements may not only lead to an unlawful violation of personal rights, but also result in criminal liability for the person making them.

Criticism of the actions or omissions of the housing community’s management board must not be based solely on individual grievances or emotional assessments of the situation, but should focus on substantive issues and express concern for the interests of the housing community as a whole. Statements made on behalf of all members, referring to specific problems and formulated in a factual manner, are, as a rule, within the limits of permissible criticism and enjoy the protection of freedom of expression.

A practical example from Polish case law:

“In the opinion of the Polish Court of Appeal, the criticism expressed by the defendant, although sharp, did not constitute unlawful conduct for these reasons. Importantly, the defendant did not harbour any personal grievances against the Cooperative and its management board members, but also acted on behalf of other members of the Cooperative who trusted him and appreciated his knowledge of inaccuracies in the management of the common property. Therefore, the Polish Court of Appeal held that, in light of the misconduct of the members of the management board, the defendant’s statements were justified and, in this situation, even more radical statements would have been justified. Despite the measures taken by the defendant, the Cooperative did not explain the decisions taken regarding its finances.” (Supreme Polish Court ruling of 23 January 2025, ref. no. I CSK 254/24).

“There are certainly significant differences between the defendant’s and the claimant’s positions regarding the types and methods of renovation, and this is not the place to assess who is right. If the defendant’s letters were limited to criticising the renovations, the lack of pest control or the failure to prune trees, it could be assumed that the defendant (as a competent person, being a builder) acted, as the Polish Court put it, pro publico bono. although, in the opinion of the Polish Court of Appeal, a more appropriate forum for making such comments would be a meeting of the members of the Community (…). It should be reiterated that it was not the defendant’s critical comments on the manner in which the renovations were carried out that violated the claimant’s personal rights. They were violated by statements accusing her of mismanagement, corruption, exposing residents to harm, consenting to the misappropriation of property and other offensive epithets” (judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal in Katowice, 1st Civil Division, of 6 September 2013, ref. no. I ACa 493/13).

Summary

Violation of the personal rights of members of a condominium management board is an increasingly common issue in interactions between unit owners and the management bodies. Although the limits of permissible criticism are broader for individuals performing public or quasi-public functions, not all criticism is allowed, and the form, content, and context of the statement are crucial. Critical remarks regarding the management board’s actions may be justified, especially when they are fact-based, concern significant matters of the community, and serve to protect the public interest. However, attributing crimes to the management board without legal basis or using offensive language can lead to civil and criminal liability. In practice, it is important to adhere to principles of proportionality, respectful expression, and accuracy to ensure that criticism remains within the bounds of the law.