Time limitation concerning the validity of carrier’s claims against the so-called “fare dodger” in the case of railway transport
Michał Hejbudzki
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w OlsztynieAbstract
The aim of the study is to establish a period of limitation on the validity of the carrier’s claims against the so-called “fare dodger” in rail transport. The considerations contained in the present study lead to the conclusion that, in principle, the legal relationship between a railway carrier and a passenger who boards a freely accessible train in order to travel without purchasing a ticket should be perceived as a contract of carriage. Only such an interpretation of national law can be reconciled with the interpretation of EU law made by the CJEU in the judgement of 7 November 2019 (C-349/18). It means that, in principle, a traveller without a ticket should be classified as a consumer with all the consequences. In the event of judicial redress procedures against such passengers, the court is obliged to make a juridical assessment of the facts under the provisions on the limitation on the validity of claims and consider the limitation of the claim even without the procedural initiative of the traveller acting as a defendant. Invoking the construction of a non-contractual legal relationship between the railway carrier and the so-called “fare dodger”
by creditors – claimants seem to be pointless in the light of the CJEU’s interpretation of EU law and should only be seen as an attempt to circumvent the mandatory provisions on limitation of claims against consumers. The theory
of a non-contractual legal relationship between the carrier and a traveller without a ticket seems to be justified in situations where there are features of an offence under Article 121 § 1 of the Code of Petty Offences. Then it will be
permissible to apply the limitation period for claims under Article 4421 § 1 of the Civil Code based on the rule of Article 443 of the Civil Code. It should also be noted that the pro-EU interpretation of the contractual legal relationship
between the railway carrier and the so-called “fare dodger” does not in any way prejudice the application of Article 16(1) of the transport law and normatively does not make it an empty norm. This provision should be interpreted
in line with the interpretation provided by the CJEU. Moreover, it fully retains its current application to travellers on trains that cannot be freely accessed. The theory of a non-contractual legal relationship between the carrier and a traveller without a ticket seems to be justified in situations where there are features of an offence under Article 121 § 1 of the the Misdemeanor Code. Then it will be permissible to apply the limitation period for claims under Article 4421 § 1 of the Civil Code based on the rule of Article 443 of the Civil Code. It should also be noted that the pro-EU interpretation of the contractual legal relationship between the railway carrier and the so-called "fare dodger" does not in any way prejudice the application of Article 16(1) of the transport law and normatively does not make it an empty norm. This provision should be interpreted in line with the interpretation provided by the CJEU. Moreover, it fully retains its current application to travellers on trains that cannot be freely accessed.
Keywords:
prawo cywilne, przedawnienie roszczeń wobec tzw. „pasażera na gapę”, przewóz kolejowy, przewoźnik kolejowy, pasażer, umowa przewozu, podróż pociągiem bez biletu, tzw. „pasażer na gapę”, konsument, przedsiębiorcaReferences
Ambrożuk D., [w:] Prawo przewozowe. Komentarz, D. Dąbrowski, K. Wesołowski, D. Ambrożuk, Lex/el. 2019. Google Scholar
Baranowska-Zając W., Czy dyrektywa konsumencka chroni pasażera "na gapę"? Omówienie wyroku TS z dnia 7 listopada 2019 r., C-349/18 (Kanyeba), opubl. Lex/el. 2019. Google Scholar
Czub K., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, red. M. Balwicka-Szczyrba, A. Sylwestrzak, Warszawa 2022, Lex. Google Scholar
Dmowski S., [w:] Komentarz do Kodeksu cywilnego. Księga pierwsza. Część ogólna, S. Rudnicki, S. Dmowski, Warszawa 2011, Lex. Google Scholar
Dubis W., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, red. E. Gniewek, P. Machnikowski, Warszawa 2021, Legalis. Google Scholar
Dziurda M., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom I. Część ogólna, cz. 1 (art. 1–55(4)), red. J. Gudowski, Warszawa 2021, Lex. Google Scholar
Jagielska M., [w:] Zobowiązania. Przepisy ogólne i powiązane przepisy Księgi I KC. Tom I. Komentarz, red. P. Machnikowski, Warszawa 2022, Legalis. Google Scholar
Jaworski A., Prawo przewozowe. Komentarz, Warszawa 2012. Google Scholar
Grykiel J., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Tom I. Komentarz do art. 1–352, red. M. Gutowski, Warszawa 2021, Legalis. Google Scholar
Michalska J., Pytania prejudycjalne sądów do TSUE, [w:] Zasada pierwszeństwa prawa Unii Europejskiej w praktyce działania organów władzy publicznej RP, red. M. Jabłoński, S. Jarosz – Żukowska, Wrocław, 2015. Google Scholar
Moska M., Przybył M., Charakter prawny opłaty dodatkowej za brak odpowiedniego dokumentu przewozu, RPEiS 2021, nr 3. Google Scholar
Nazaruk P., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz aktualizowany, red. J. Ciszewski, Lex/el. 2022. Google Scholar
Osajda K., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, K. Osajda (red. serii), W. Borysiak (red. tomu), Warszawa 2021, Legalis. Google Scholar
Piasecki K., Kodeks cywilny. Księga pierwsza. Część ogólna. Komentarz, Kraków 2003, Lex. Google Scholar
Pinior P., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom I. Część ogólna (art. 1-125), red. M. Fras, M. Habdas, Warszawa 2018, Lex. Google Scholar
Rott – Pietrzyk E., [w:] Zobowiązania. Przepisy ogólne i powiązane przepisy Księgi I KC. Tom I. Komentarz, red. P. Machnikowski, Warszawa 2022, Legalis. Google Scholar
Rzucidło J., Zasada pierwszeństwa prawa unijnego w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego i sądów powszechnych, [w:] Zasada pierwszeństwa prawa Unii Europejskiej w praktyce działania organów władzy publicznej RP, red. M. Jabłoński, S. Jarosz – Żukowska, Wrocław, 2015. Google Scholar
Safjan M., [w:], Kodeks cywilny. Tom I. Komentarz. Art. 1–449 10, red. K. Pietrzykowski, Warszawa 2020, Legalis. Google Scholar
Sobolewski P., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, red. serii K. Osajda, red. tomu W. Borysiak, Warszawa 2022, Legalis. Google Scholar
Sokołowski T., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom I. Część ogólna, red. A. Kidyba, Warszawa 2012, Lex. Google Scholar
Świerczyński M., [w:] Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, red. M. Załucki, Warszawa 2019, Legalis. Google Scholar
Szanciło T., Forma zawarcia umowy przewozu na tle form zawierania umów, PPH 2013, nr 4. Google Scholar
Szanciło T., Prawo przewozowe. Komentarz, 2008, Legalis. Google Scholar
Wolter A., Ignatowicz J., Stefaniuk K., Prawo cywilne. Zarys części ogólnej, Warszawa 2001. Google Scholar
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
