Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Studia Iuridica

2 Zembrzuski T.

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Access to the Supreme Court – Polish Approach

100%

Zembrzuski T.

2019

tom 81

233-244

The article presents the evolution of cassation complaint in Polish civil procedure. The author describes the nature of this appellate measure and the requirements of its admissibility. Aditionally, the text provides an insight into a preliminary procedure designed to select cassation complaints, which will be subsequently examined by the Supreme Court on the merits. The author depicts the evolution of Polish cassation into an extraordinary appellate measure and analyses how it has affected access to the Supreme Court. He argues that the preliminary acceptance procedure does not constitute a limitation of the admissibility of the cassation complaint. It is an additional, independent instrument regulating access to the Supreme Court. In his view, selection of admissible complaints with regard to preliminary acceptance is a better solution than developing limitations related to the admissibility of cassation complaints. The author concludes that requirements for cassation complaints are high and difficult to fulfil. The special character of cassation complaint, the relevance of the institution of preliminary selection, as well as other limitations, justify the thesis that Polish procedural law provides only a narrow access to the Supreme Court.

Złożenie wniosku o sporządzenie i doręczenie uzasadnienia wyroku w dniu jego ogłoszenia

100%

Zembrzuski T.

tom 75

249-272

Procedural formalism requires conformity to requirements concerning the approach to procedural measures as to the form, location, and time of their commencement. The timely completion of each procedural measure, including applications for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification thereof, remains a condition for its effectiveness. It goes without saying that the court will reject any delayed application for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification in closed session – whereas discrepancies in adjudicature as well as doctrine doubts have arisen with regard to effects of filing “premature” applications. It has been ultimately ruled that any applications for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification filed on the day of yet prior to judgment delivery shall be considered ineffective. The judgment only exists once it has been delivered or once its operative part has been signed, i.a. it can only become the object of other procedural measures as of that moment rather than as of that day. Every period defined as a specific time span has to be framed with occurrences outlining its beginning and end, respectively. It is impossible to calculate a period as of a procedural measure which has not been completed yet. Since the securing of a justification of a judgment delivered in one’s own case is an expression of exercising the right to fair trial, and aspects of the right to trial include the right to a defect-free judgment, such right ought to be exercised only provided that the relevant application moved for is defect-free as well. Making the effectiveness of an application for the drafting and submitting of judgment justification dependent on the delivery of the operative part of a judgment concerns both the act of filing a letter with the court and submitting the same at an operator’s postal premises.