When a court omits, at its own initiative, to grant an attorney-in-fact access to the Information Portal, does this render the proceedings invalid?
This was the finding in a Supreme Court judgment of 7 February 2024 in case ref. no. act II PSKP 17/23, when it set aside the judgment of the Regional Court in Białystok and discontinued the proceedings in part before the court of second instance, indicating that it concurred with the argument that the proceedings before the court of second instance were invalid.
The essence of the objections raised in the cassation appeal was that the court of second instance was only willing to notify the appellant’s attorney about the date of the hearing through the Information Portal. The problem, however, was that this attempt at service was made without granting access to the case, which did not prevent service being deemed to have occurred, the appeal being heard, and a judgment being issued.
As soon as the statement of reasons for the Supreme Court’s ruling is issued, we will be happy to quote it in more detail, although due to the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure that has now come into force, it will be primarily a testament to the fact that hopefully the problems with digitalization of the judiciary are coming to an end.
