This is the crux of the latest ultimate Court ruling. It is all the more crucial that specified mislabelling of the suspect is rather frequent, as many different institutions, especially state and local institutions, operating in everyday life, including economical ones, have no judicial capacity, that is, the anticipation of appearing in civilian proceedings as a organization (cause, defendant).
Process Introduction Error
The effects of dismissing a suit may be rather far-reaching, including the limitation of the claim, due to the fact that the denied suit does not interrupt its course; at best it will require a fresh lawsuit. This issue resulted in a case for payment from the company's o.o., which as a suspect indicated in the suit the Regional Chamber of taxation Administration in Rzeszów, but specified chambers in strictly civilian cases do not have judicial capacity and do not act alone, but as representatives of the State Treasury (the SP should be formally sued). These units, offices happen only as the alleged statio fisci (in the case of the municipalities of statio municipi), which frequently causes confusion at the very beginning of the process.
The territory and territory Courts in Rzeszow rejected the suit pursuant to Article 199 §1.3 of the KPC, which states that the court rejects the suit, inter alia, if 1 of the parties has no judicial capacity. The company appealed to the ultimate Court, arguing that specified inaccuracy could be removed like another shortcomings of the lawsuit, calling on the plaintiff to identify the right defendant. SN did not agree to this position.
Isn't that besides expensive?
The SN indicated that the removal of the party's deficiency of judicial capacity cannot lead to an individual change in the action involving the entry into proceedings of a individual with judicial capacity in place of an entity that does not have specified capacity. The deficiency of judicial capacity is then irreparable and should consequence in the rejection of a suit without the request to effort to remedy specified lack. This applies in peculiar to cases where an action is brought against state or local government organisational units which do not have judicial capacity.
– In the light of the existing legal regulations and the case law of the ultimate Court, there is no basis for identifying in any case the plaintiff's intentions with the intention of suing the individual liable in a circumstantial case according to the judgement of the court – the justice Roman Trzaskowski pointed out in the conclusions of the message of reasons.
Advocate Roman Nowosielski is not so strict, indicating that in cases where he has been identified as a suspect state unit, universal knowledge, especially for the court, is that the suspect is the Treasury, and this inaccuracy can be removed by urging the plaintiff to remove it within the prescribed time limit. There is no reason to put the organization in danger of rejecting the lawsuit, especially since it is easy to make specified inaccuracies with frequent changes in regulations and public institutions, especially erstwhile it comes to a individual without a lawyer. “If the plaintiff represents a professional lawyer from the beginning, he should find who the suspect is, and if he made a mistake, it would be good practice for the court to let the suspect to be specified,” adds the lawyer.
File number: I CSK 1299/24
Artur Grajewski
civil justice SO in Warsaw
The designation of the organization in specified a way as to prevent its attribution of judicial capacity shall not be supplemented by a call for formal deficiencies or in any another way, unless it is, for example, a ‘letter’ or another manifest clerical mistake in the name or an indication of a branch of a legal individual alongside its appropriate name, etc. However, I have met the rulings of the courts of the second instance which waived the orders of the First instance rejecting the lawsuit, if the ‘repair procedure’ has not been implemented, in peculiar erstwhile the reason was a natural individual not represented by a professional proxy, consisting in calling the plaintiff to specify whether his intention is actually to sue the statio fisci indicated in the lawsuit, or the SP or the municipality represented by the head of that unit. However, no provision requires specified action of the court – it is alternatively good practice.
