The term “mining damage” does not appear in legal regulations but is a colloquial concept. Mining damage should be understood as damage to property rights caused by the operations of a mining facility.
This issue is regulated by the legislator in Article 144 and subsequent articles of the Geological and Mining Law Act of June 9, 2011 (GML).
According to Article 144(1) of the GML, a property owner cannot object to the risks caused by the operation of a mining facility conducted in accordance with the law. However, they may demand compensation for damage caused by such operations, under the principles set out in the Act. This provision also applies to other entities whose property rights are endangered by mining activity.
In matters not regulated by the GML, the Act refers to the provisions of the Civil Code, which apply directly to the compensation for mining damage (Article 145 GML).
The responsibility for mining damage lies with the entrepreneur operating the mining facility whose activity caused the damage, as well as other entities conducting activities regulated by the GML – even if the provisions relating to mining operations do not directly apply to them.
The legislator partially outlines in Article 147 of the GML that damage may be remedied by restoring the previous state, if the injured party chooses this form of compensation. Restoration may include, in particular, the provision of land, buildings, equipment, premises, water, or other goods of the same kind. Compensation for damage to agricultural or forest land degraded or devastated by mining operations is carried out according to regulations on the protection of such land.
Accordingly, to establish liability for mining damage under the GML, three conditions must be met:
- The occurrence of damage, i.e., a loss to property or legally protected interests suffered against the will of the injured party;
- Operation of a mining facility in accordance with the law;
- A causal link between the damage and the mining operations.
Non-property damages (e.g., personal suffering) are not covered by the GML, as the act does not contain provisions that would constitute a legal basis for claims for compensation for non-material harm.
It should be noted that Article 144(1) and (2) of the GML applies only when the mining activity is conducted in accordance with the law. These provisions do not apply when the source of the threat is not mining activity, or if the mining activity is not conducted lawfully. In such cases, the entrepreneur is liable for the damage under the principles set out in the Civil Code.
Operating a mining facility in accordance with the Act means operating it in line with legal regulations, the approved mine operation plan, and principles of mining technique (Article 105 GML). The condition of compliance with the law will not be met when, for example, operations are conducted in violation of the mine’s operational plan.
A mining entrepreneur’s defence against compensation claims for mining damage should focus on demonstrating the absence of a causal link between the mining activity and the alleged damage.
It is advisable to regularly conduct vibration measurements from blasting works, monitor noise and dust emissions, and ensure emissions are minimized. Additionally, maintaining a safe distance between blasting operations and nearby buildings is important.