Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 13 No. 1 (2020)

Articles

The Concept of “Workplace” under the Polish Civil Procedure Code as a Place of Service of Civil Case Pleadings/Court Papers on a Natural Person. Remarks on the Law as It Stands and as It should Stand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tekapr.2020.13.1-7  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2020-06-30

Abstract

The correctness and effectiveness of service of documents in civil procedure depends on a number of requirements, which also include a correctly defined place of delivery. Pursuant to Art. 135, para. 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), the service of procedural documents in civil cases on the addressee who is a natural person shall be effected at the place of addressee’s residence, work or where the addressee is found in person. The deliberations on this institution presented herein lead to the conclusion that this term is both autonomous and vague, because after the once the wording of Art. 126, para. 2 CCP was changed by the amendment of 2 July 2004, it has lost the value of addressee’s identification. The introduction of an appropriate statutory provision to define this place as the place of service of a pleading/court paper could raise doubts as to the compliance of such a regulation with the constitutional principle of equality, of the parties to civil proceedings before the law (Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland). As part of a proposal for the law as it should stand, it is worth considering to preserve the requirement of specification of the workplace as the place for the service of the pleading/court paper, since the adjudication authority does not know ex officio the occupation and workplace of the party concerned, and the party itself is not obliged to specify such address in the pleading. The admissibility of imposing on the adjudicating authority an obligation to determine the place of residence of the addressee of a pleading should also be excluded. On the other hand, it would be a more appropriate solution to introduce an obligation for a procedural party to precisely specify the address for service in the contents of the first pleading filed, otherwise subsequent pleadings will remain in the case file with the effect as if actually served. It should also be considered to introduce a specific notion grid for the purposes of document service, which would ensure the effectiveness of such delivery by means of widely defined designations of the proper place of service. The carelessness and inconsistency of the legislature in the use of vague concepts with different scopes of application does not contribute to the precise determination of the place of service.

References

  1. Bodio, Joanna. 2010. “Komentarz do art. 177 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.” In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, ed. Andrzej Jakubecki, ed. 4, 231–33. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gersdorf, Małgorzata. 2008. “Komentarz do art. 29 Kodeksu pracy.” In Kodeks pracy. Komentarz, ed. Zbigniew Salwa, 110–11. Warszawa: LexisNexis. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jakubecki, Andrzej. 2011. “Komentarz do art. 177 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.” In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, ed. Henryk Dolecki, and Tadeusz Wiśniewski, vol. 1, 623–24. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jędrzejewska, Maria, and Karol Weitz. 2009. “Komentarz do art. 138 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.” In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Część pierwsza. Postępowanie rozpoznawcze, ed. Tadeusz Ereciński, vol. 1, ed. 3, 431–34. Warszawa: LexisNexis. [Google Scholar]
  5. Julke, Grzegorz. 2004. “Doręczenia w sądowym postępowaniu egzekucyjnym.” Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego 5–6:35–82. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kołakowski, Krzysztof. 2006. “Komentarz do art. 138 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.” In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz do artykułów 1–50514, ed. Kazimierz Piasecki, vol. 1, ed. 4, 592–614. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  7. Liszcz, Teresa. 2008. Prawo pracy. Warszawa: LexisNexis. [Google Scholar]
  8. Muszalski, Wojciech. 2000. “Komentarz do art. 29 Kodeksu pracy.” In Kodeks pracy. Komentarz, ed. Wojciech Muszalski, 89–91. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rudkowska–Ząbczyk, Ewa. 2008. Pisemne czynności procesowe w postępowaniu cywilnym. Ed. 1. Warszawa: LexisNexis. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sanetra, Walerian. 1994. “O pojęciu części zakładu pracy.” Przegląd Sądowy 1:8–21. [Google Scholar]
  11. Taniewska, Maria. 1980. “Przestrzenne granice wykonywania pracy.” Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne 3:15–29. [Google Scholar]
  12. Tomaszewska, Monika. 2012. “Komentarz do art. 29 Kodeksu pracy.” In Kodeks pracy. Komentarz, ed. Krzysztof W. Baran, 81–82. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wolińska, Agata. 2003. “Zasady doręczania pism sądowych przedsiębiorcom.” Prawo Spółek 2:36–49. [Google Scholar]
  14. Żyznowski, Tadeusz. 2013a. “Komentarz do art. 135 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.” In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, red. Henryk Dolecki, and Tadeusz Wiśniewski, vol. 1, ed. 2, 486–87. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]
  15. Żyznowski, Tadeusz. 2013b. “Komentarz do art. 138 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.” In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, ed. Henryk Dolecki, and Tomasz Wiśniewski, vol. 1, ed. 2, 501. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.