Moreover, this deficiency of procedural action does not undermine the subsequent assignment of the applicant’s representative, even of his own motion. In short, it must be established before sending a letter to the SN.
This is at the heart of the latest ultimate Court ruling, informing against the hazard of specified negligence, most likely due to the ignorance of those referring to the ultimate Court.
Postulated capacity
This issue arose in the case of an entry in the land registry in which the Wejherov territory Court rejected the action for a declaration of non-compliance with the law of the final judgement of the SR which the dissatisfied associate referred to the SN. The reason was that it was not drawn up by a qualified lawyer. The associate appealed to the SN, but the complaint besides made a individual motion to appoint a typical for him of his own motion in the complaint proceedings.
The ultimate Court rejected this complaint without substantive examination, recalling that, in accordance with Article 87 (1) (1) § 1 of the Code of civilian Procedure, in the proceedings before the ultimate Court, the replacement of the parties by lawyers or legal advisers, i.e. the alleged barrister-addicter's coercion, applies. It means that only persons with alleged postulatory capacity can submit (on behalf of the parties) letters and appear before the SN.
This compulsory replacement besides applies to procedural proceedings relating to proceedings before the ultimate Court and to proceedings before the lower court, as in the case of a complaint lodged through the territory Court. Exceptions to this rule are clearly defined: there is no legal or advisory coercion, e.g. in proceedings for dismissal from judicial costs and for the establishment of a lawyer or legal adviser. besides if the party, its body or lawyer is simply a judge, prosecutor, notary or prof. of legal science.
– Failure to comply with the barrister's work is irreparable and the complaint affected by specified deficiency is so rejected without calling on the applicant to supplement it. This deficiency cannot be removed by the establishment of a qualified typical for the applicant’s party, either ex officio. The possible addition, or support by a professional typical of the complaint, made by the organization personally, besides does not meet the statutory requirements for the preservation of the barrister's coercion. For these reasons, the complaint brought personally by a associate with no postulatory capacity was rejected as inadmissible, according to justice Dariusz Donczyk in the conclusions of the ruling of the ultimate Court.
The recipe is clear
– The law on barrister coercion is comparatively clear, but many people may not have cognition of the procedures in force, so initiating a court case they should take advice from a lawyer as to how and under what conditions they can conduct it. They may besides apply to the court before bringing a lawsuit, and even more so to appeal to the SN, to appoint an lawyer of his own motion. specified a proxy, erstwhile it has been established that the measurement has a chance of success, may submit it. Following the rejection of the complaint to the SN, the complainant may effort to file it again, already involving a lawyer. The question, however, is whether there will be a time limit for specified an activity – says lawyer Roman Nowosielski.
File number: III CZ 147/24
Artur Grajewski
Judge of the Warsaw territory Court
Any letter addressed to the SN must be drawn up by a professional representative, but for a request for exemption from judicial costs and for the establishment of a lawyer or lawyer. The organization shall be informed of this in the court instructions sent to it. These provisions are mandatory and the letter submitted by the organization itself is not subject to a formal deficiency procedure, but are rejected, which may frequently have negative consequences for the organization if the time limit for bringing an appeal by this means ends. Only an application for the appointment of an ex officio typical shall consequence in the interruption of the time limit for the submission of a letter, a complaint or a cassation action, which shall be repeated from the time of the service of the copy of the decision with the justification of the agent established, or from the service to the organization of the copy of the order rejecting its application.
