Among the court proceedings before civilian and economical courts are any of the most many cases. In those cases, the court may issue a order for payment which, if not effectively contested, constitutes an attitude to initiate executions on an equal footing with the judgment. Therefore, the timely, formally and substantively correct submission of opposition to the order for payment is crucial for the defence of the defendant's rights in the trial. In the following article, we will present the most crucial issues relating to opposition to the order for payment, including the formal conditions, the time limit, the question of justification and the consequences of the law in the event of rejection.
Opposition to order for payment — from which decisions may be brought
As indicated in the introduction, in civil matters and economical orders for payment may be issued.
Court of First Instance order for payment in the review procedure, where the claimant is in charge of payment of the monetary amount (positive message) and there are no negative indications, i.e.:
- The claim is evidently not unfounded,
- there is no uncertainty about the facts,
- the satisfaction of the claim does not depend on the common benefit.
The order for payment in the proceedings in question does not require a separate application. The Court of First Instance may so order an order even if the claimant does not include in the application a mention to the review procedure, provided that the above conditions are met and there are no negative indications.
The second category of decisions against which objections may be raised is order for payment in electronic redress. The electronic reprimand procedure (the alleged EPU) is initiated on the basis of an electronic suit brought to e-Sąd, i.e. to the 6th civilian Division of the Lublin – West territory Court in Lublin.
In particular, we wrote about the above proceedings in the application article for payment in practice – in the part concerning Remedy proceedings and in the part concerning electronic redress.
By objecting, the order for payment shall expire. In the case of review proceedings, the case shall be automatically referred to average proceedings, which shall, in principle, end in a judgment.
Within EPU opposition where the electronic callback procedure is terminated. In order to proceed the case, the plaintiff must again bring a suit to the competent civilian or commercial court.
Opposition to the order for payment period
In accordance with the provisions of the civilian Procedure Code, opposition to the order for payment in the review procedure and opposition to the order for payment in the electronic callback procedure it must be lodged within 2 weeks of the date of service of the order. Time limit for opposition to the order for payment it shall be deemed to have been preserved if the letter in question has been sent by registered message or lodged at the post office of the court before the expiry of the two-week period indicated above.
Formal objection to the order for payment
The objection should be addressed to the court which issued the order for payment. The content of the objection required is partially governed by Article 4803 § 2 k.p.c., according to which in a letter of appeal against the order for payment, the suspect should state whether he is challenging the order in full or in part and state the pleas which, under the punishment of their loss, must be brought before a dispute arises as to the substance of the case..
The opposition to the order for payment shall besides be subject to the general requirements which the civilian Procedure Code refers to all pleadings.
Annexes should be annexed to the objection. In economical matters, the opposition, as the first letter of the suspect in the case, should additionally contain information concerning the defendant's email address or annotation that the suspect does not have specified an address.
These elements constitute a formal objection to the order for payment. Where the opposition does not contain any of these elements, the court shall call on the suspect to remedy the deficiencies within a week, subject to the rigour of rejection. However, according to the provisions of the Public Procurement Law, the incorrect title of the letter does not constitute a formal absence, provided that the incorrect title makes it possible to make the case run, i.e. the wording of the letter shows that this is an objection to the order for payment.
Example: After receiving the order for payment in the registrar’s proceedings, the suspect drew up an appeal, mistakenly marking the letter as “Appeal from the order for paymentIt’s okay. ” The Code of civilian Procedure does not supply for specified a letter in the registrar proceedings. However, if the text of the letter contains information to establish its character (e.g. by inserting information on the order for payment, by whom, erstwhile and in what case the suspect is suing), the court should not call on the suspect to remedy the deficiencies but should give the case a run.
In addition to the formal elements mentioned above, opposition to the order for payment may include additional pleas and formal applications which the suspect should have filed at the beginning of the proceedings. These include:
- a request to mention the case to another court, locally competent for examining the case,
- allegations concerning the absence of national jurisdiction,
- allegations of the seriousness of the judgment,
- application for a hearing,
- an application for an examination of a case which has not been covered by the rules on economical proceedings (when it is possible to submit specified an application we wrote in the article “Application for payment in practiceIt is not known whether or not you are taking advantage of me.
As part of the mandatory elements of opposition to the order for payment in the registrar proceedings, it is besides essential to mention the evidence for which the suspect is seeking in the case and the facts to be shown by that evidence. The consequences of non-indicating evidence in the objection will be described in the following section.
Fee on opposition to the order for payment
Opposition to a payment order in a review procedure neither opposition to the order for payment in the electronic callback procedure they are not subject to a court fee. This is not the case in the case of charges against the order for payment in the order procedure, as will be mentioned below.
It should be borne in head that, despite the absence of a charge of opposition, the conduct of proceedings (yet before the judgment) may affect the suspect having to bear certain costs.
Example: If the suspect submits in opposition to a payment order a request for evidence from an expert’s opinion or for the proceeding of witnesses residing outside the court, the court may impose an work on the suspect to pay an advance on the expert’s opinion or advance on the costs of driving the witness to the court.
Failure to pay these costs at the request of the court may consequence in the rejection of an application for evidence or another adverse consequences determined by the court.
Rejected order for payment
An objection to a payment order lodged after a time limit or containing formal deficiencies which the suspect has not completed shall be rejected by the court. In rule rejection of the opposition to the order for payment the order is valid. In specified a case, the claimant may apply for a declaration of enforceability and, on the basis of the designated implementing title, initiate execution.
However, if the time limit for the opposition has been exceeded for reasons not attributable to the defendant, the suspect shall have the right to apply for the restoration of the time limit. This application must be brought to court within a week, since the reason for the failure to comply has ceased. The application should contain a similarity to the circumstances which led to the deadline being exceeded. In parallel with this letter, the opposition to the order for payment must be annexed to the court.
Example: The suspect was ordered to pay in the registrar proceedings on 1 September 2021. On the last day to rise objections, the suspect suffered a car accident resulting in him staying in infirmary until October 1, 2021. The opposition to the order for payment was not filed within the time limit, but without the defendant's fault. Therefore, within 7 days of leaving the infirmary (until 8 October 2021), the suspect should submit a request for the restoration of the time limit for the submission of the objection, accompanied by evidence of his infirmary stay or another evidence of a deficiency of guilt in the failure to comply with the time limit. The application must be opposed to the order for payment, i.e. to complete the late work.
Objection to the order for payment
Reasons for opposition to the order for payment in the review procedure
In addition to the formal matters described above and the conclusions and allegations, opposition to the order for payment in the registrar proceedings should contain a justification. Opposition to payment order without justification it will not usually be regarded as a deficiency letter, but its transfer may origin crucial difficulties in proving the facts later and in presenting its position on the case. As can be seen from the caselaw of the ultimate Court (judgment of 9 July 2009 No. III CSK 341/08) it cannot be argued in consequence to the suit that it does not agree with the action ‘contrary to all the facts invoked by the plaintiff, another than those explicitly admitted’. The facts and evidence relating to circumstantial circumstances with which the suspect disagrees should indicate, if this is intended to defend his right, he should respond to the plaintiff’s claims.
In the light of the above, it should be assumed that all the circumstances not in the opposition and not individually contradicted by the suspect may be assessed by the court as granted.
In accordance with the general principles of command, the organization should submit claims and evidence to justify its claims in the first pleading. In accordance with Article 20512 §2 of the Code, if they may be called up until the closing of the case, subject, however, to adverse effects which, according to the provisions of the Code, may consequence from hold or failure to comply with the orders of the president of the Court of Justice.
Example: The suspect received a payment order from the court with a copy of the application and a instruction about the anticipation of objecting and the request to set up all claims and evidence in opposition. The suspect lodged an objection in which he simply stated that he was challenging the order for payment and did not agree with the claims made in the application, without detailed mention to those circumstances and to the submission of evidence. However, in the course of the trial, the suspect stated that he would like to supplement his position, and so made a procedural letter with arguments and evidence. The claims and evidence contained in the letter may be regarded by the court as late and omitted in the judgment.
Especially strict rules of command are laid down in the provisions of the Code of civilian Procedure for economical proceedings. Under this procedure, it expressly states that The plaintiff is obliged to establish all claims and evidence in the suit and the suspect – in consequence to the lawsuit.
For the above reasons, the opposition to the order for payment should not be considered simply as a formality but as an essential part of the defendant's defence in the process, frequently as its most crucial element. For this reason, after receiving the order for payment, it is worth considering entrusting the opposition to a lawyer who will not only take care of formal matters, but besides to include all the claims and evidence applicable to the defence of the defendant's interests in the written submission.
Reasons for opposition to the order for payment in the electronic callback procedure
The question of justification in opposition to the order for payment in the electronic redress procedure is somewhat different. In practice, the opposition to the proceedings is based on the uncovering that the suspect is full challenging the order for payment. It is clear from the provisions of the General Court that no evidence is attached to the objection in the electronic registrar proceedings (Article 50535 k.p.c.). Furthermore, the opposition does not require any objections to the application for a suit or to state the facts in support of them. As indicated above, the opposition to the order for payment in the electronic registrar procedure leads to the termination of the proceedings and does not aim at substantive examination. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to supply a justification and evidence to support the claims made.
Charges from the order for payment
In addition to the orders for payment issued in the abovementioned proceedings: registrarship and electronic redress, the civilian Procedure Code provides for another category of orders for payment – order for payment in order procedure. The grounds for issuing this order are described in the article “A suit for payment in practice” in the part concerning the order procedure.
In any respects, the appeal against that judgement differs from the another judgments referred to in the article. First, it should be pointed out that, according to K.p.c., the order for payment in question must be lodged within a period of 2 weeks. charges, not objection. Another discrimination is the necessity to pay charges. This is due to the privileged position of the plaintiff in the injunction procedure. The fee on the application is only 1⁄4 of the standard fee. The remainder, i.e. 3⁄4 of the fee should be paid by the suspect together with the charges
Example: The plaintiff filed a suit for payment of PLN 100,000. The standard fee on the suit would be 5%, or PLN 5,000. However, the plaintiff based the application for payment on a bill of lading signed by the suspect and applied for a payment order in the order procedure. For this reason, the fee on the application yet amounted to 1⁄4 of the abovementioned amount, i.e. PLN 1,250. The case was subsequently ordered to pay in the order procedure. If the suspect wishes to challenge the order, he must pay a court fee of PLN 3⁄4 x PLN 5 000, i.e. PLN 3 750.
It besides needs to be stressed that the order for payment in the order procedure constitutes the title of the security, enforceable without a declaration of enforceability. Therefore, on the basis of this order, a safety may be established for the defendant's assets (e.g. bank accounts occupied). On the another hand, a payment order issued on the basis of a note or a check becomes immediately enforceable after the expiry of the time limit to settle the claim. Therefore, in order to avoid remanding on the basis of a payment order, the suspect should include in his objection appropriate requests, i.e. a request to restrict the safety or to suspend the execution of the order.
Commentary of Capital Legal Chancellery
Opposition to a payment order is 1 of the most crucial procedural documents. Due to the adverse effects that the parties may have on their interests, it is worth paying more attention to the subject if it is late, incomplete or insufficiently justified.
If, after reading the article, you have any further questions about the subject or if you request aid with your opposition to the order for payment, delight contact the Chancellery. Our law firm provides comprehensive legal assistance in civil and economical matters.
