two diverging successions of the same court to the same circle of heirs are subject to another, 13. an emergency complaint by the Ombudsman. The differences in the shares of the inheritance were not large, but their fact alone prevented the family from arranging the estates. Therefore, its members requested help from the RPO.
This is another such extraordinary complaint from the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. The aim is to enable citizens to carry out the inheritance department after the deceased and to finalise their rights.
This is impossible in the current state. This is contrary to the principles of the democratic rule of law and requires the need to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and of the citizen on whose guard the RPO stands.
History of the case
The May Order 2004 The District Court of W. stated that the inheritance from the deceased S.Z. on the basis of the bill acquired a husband in 5/20 part, children and grandson after 3/20 parts of each of them, except that the inheritance farm inherited by law the husband in 5/20 parts, children and grandson after 3/20 parts of each of them. The order passed against the failure to make an appeal.
The diverging decisions of the court to acquire inheritance from the same person, unfortunately, are not uncommon. This makes it impossible for the heirs to act in relation to the property, such as the entry in the perpetual book, the division of assets, let alone its sale
However, the final decision to establish the acquisition of the inheritance in this case had already been made. It was issued by the same District Court in W. In July 1999 On this basis, they acquired the inheritance by law: husband in 1/4 part, children and grandson after 3/20 parts of each of them.
In 2019 Before the District Court in W. between the heirs of S.Z. there was a case about the inheritance department and the abolition of property co-ownership. Only then did it turn out to exist two various succession decisions which prevent a correct settlement. That's why the heirs asked for RPO's help.
Arguments of the exceptional complaint
The Ombudsman requested the annulment of the order of the District Court of May 2004 and reject the then request to establish the inheritance.
The order of the RPO is alleging a gross violation of the procedural law, i.e. the decision to request the acquisition of the inheritance instead of its rejection, since the same case - between the same parties and by the same court - was already final.
The reoccupation in this matter and, as a result, the issue of the next order clearly undermines the constitutional principle of trust in the state and legal security (Article 2 Constitution), constitutional right to inherit (Article 64(1)(2) Constitution) and the right to a court (Article 45(1) Constitution) - if there is a clear prohibition of statutory ruling on the same (so-called res judicata). We are therefore faced with a state of legal uncertainty in which heirs cannot exercise their rights.
It is often possible to bring an action for reopening proceedings in such situations. In this case, however, due to the expiry of the time limit for reopening the procedure, the only legal measure was an exceptional complaint.
Again, the extraordinary complaint is not addressed to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs (appropriate according to the literal burden Article 26 Act on SN from 8 December 2017), But the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. The resolution of 23 January 2020 Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court: Civil, Criminal and Labour and Social Insurance, stating that the composition of the court is contrary to the law, also when the court is composed of a person appointed to the office of a judge of the Supreme Court on a proposal of the National Court of Justice established in accordance with the Act of December 2017
Given that the full composition of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs was established in the manner described in the resolution of the Supreme Court, its rulings would be affected by a defect of annulment. Only in order to eliminate this possibility was it necessary to refer an emergency complaint to the Civil Chamber of the SN as competent in civil law matters.
System activities of RPO
The diverging decisions of the court to acquire inheritance from the same person, unfortunately, are not uncommon. This makes it impossible for the heirs to take legal action against the property, such as the entry in the perpetual book, the division of assets, let alone its sale.
In several such cases, the RPO made extraordinary complaints to the SN – two It's settled. But this is not a systemic solution. It should be ensured that the persons directly concerned can eliminate the defective one issued for the time second, the succession.
The Ombudsman spoke to Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobra to consider taking the appropriate legislative initiative.