Therefore, despite the occurrence of COVID-19 economic activity in many sectors has not been stopped, at present in particular entrepreneurs from a group of those who have been banned or significantly restricted from operating, are wondering if, in fact, such severe restrictions imposed by the government were actually necessary and whether the State Treasury should not be held responsible for such decisions.
Russell Bedford is a law firm first the choice to seek compensation for entrepreneurs harmed by government decisions on protection against the effects of the pandemic. If you wish to take legal action in this area, please contact us. We will examine the situation of the company and develop an individual aid plan
In the initial stage of announcing the state of emergency epidemic and then epidemic, even the Minister of Health did not speak positively about the obligation to wear masks universally, while at present the majority of the population is respecting both the obligation to wear masks and gloves.
The question is whether, for example, it was necessary to complete the closing of beauty and hair salons, instead of introducing mandatory masks, gloves, disinfection after each client and being in a particular living room, a minimum number of people, i.e. one the customer and the person providing the service.
However, after careful examination of whether it was possible to provide services safely instead of a ban or a significant restriction on their provision, it can be concluded that the ruling decisions were not necessarily hit by each industry and consequently the question arises who should be responsible for the damage suffered by the entrepreneur.
An entrepreneur who believes that due to prohibitions and restrictions introduced in connection with COVID-19 has suffered damage, may consider seeking compensation from the State Treasury for an act or omission.
Legislative omissions of the legislature can be seen in the absence of a state of emergency by the government, a state of disaster, as it would be possible to benefit from the provisions of the Act of 22 November 2002 to compensate for the loss of property resulting from the limitation of the state of emergency freedom and human rights and of the citizen.
However, it should be pointed out that the above Act concerns the possibility of obtaining compensation only for property losses resulting from the restriction of human rights and of the citizen during an emergency, e.g. the restriction of business activity.
Losses mean only what was actually lost, issued, what came out of the property of the victim (so-called "damnum emergens"), and not what was theoretically possible as a gain, benefit (so-called "lucrum cesssans").
However, the absence of a state of emergency does not prejudge the possibility of compensation from the State Treasury.
For example, even without the introduction of a state of emergency – which is not an absolute obligation, but only a possibility for the rulers – it is not excluded that actions or omissions of power were unlawful and caused damage.
It is also possible to consider the issue of relevant legal acts at a certain time, for example, that restrictions for a given industry have been abolished too late in relation to other industries and from such action by the public authority the entrepreneur considers damage because, for example, he did not earn what he could earn if the sharpen was abolished earlier.
If we want to consider the possibility of redress, the statutory conditions set out in the Civil Code must be met, i.e.:
- - damage must be caused at a certain level (the amount of damage must be shown and a specific amount of damage must be justified),
- - it must be demonstrated that the damage has been caused by an act or omission by a public administration body (e.g. the issue or absence of a specific act),
- - the causal link between the damage caused and the act or omission of the public administration in relation to the legislative obligation must be demonstrated.