Fundamental issue

As a rule, there is a so-called fundamental issue in each case, on which everything else depends. I will give the following example:

In the 1940s, officers of the Earth Office, as well as armed UB officers, came to the palace and park grounds of a count near Poznań. According to the officials, the property was subject to an agricultural reform takeover. The Earl and his family had 1.5 hours to leave the property. He did. Officials of the Land Office issued a document (“Certificate”) stating the acquisition of the property for the purposes of agricultural reform. They sent this “certificate” to the KW court, which entered the State Treasury as the owner to the KW.

In 2014, the NSA stated that: “The certificate” was issued illegally on agricultural reform (the property was not subject to the reform rules). Earl’s son regained the property in 2014. But the property and the palace were relegated. Restoring the previous state requires several million zlotys. The Earl’s son filed a lawsuit against the State Treasury (as a self-holder from 1946 to 2014) for remuneration for the deterioration of the palace. And here comes the fundamental question: Was the Treasury a holder in good or bad faith. Currently, the case at the ECtHR in Strasbourg 5633/20 (SA Poznan I C 639/16)