In April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution which may be of significant importance to attorneys of their own motion who do not agree with the amount of costs allocated to them. The decision concerns a situation in which the court grants the proxy ex officio only in part remuneration. The resolution states that in such a case the court must expressly dismiss the application to the other extent, which allows the proxy to appeal to a higher instance.
Geneza case and legal question to SN
The case that led to the resolution concerned the remuneration of an attorney of his own motion, attorney K., established by the District Court in Dzierżoniów to represent the defendant in the case for payment. The Plenipotentiary requested a higher rate of remuneration – 150% of the basic rate – due to the complexity of the case and the workload. However, the court granted her an amount of PLN 3690, calculated at the standard rate.
The lawyer requested a statement of reasons, but the court informed her that he was unable to draw it up due to the long-term absence of the judge. Nevertheless, the proxy filed a complaint and carried out calculations which showed that the court had failed to take into account a 150% charge for complicated cases.
As a result, the District Court of Dzerżoniów decided to ask a legal question to the Supreme Court, which reads: ‘If an attorney is granted ex officio the costs of unpaid legal aid only in part, must the court explicitly dismiss the application for the remaining costs?’
Two positions in the case law
The court, considering the legal question, encountered two opposing interpretations. The first said that the lack of resolution in a given case (e.g. on higher remuneration) does not give rise to a complaint because there is no "substrate of appeal".
On the other hand, the second pointed to an exception which is made in cases of reimbursement of the costs of the process.
In this case, if a part of the costs has not been granted, it may be presumed that the court has dismissed the claim in the remainder, which would result in the absence of a separate decision to dismiss the remainder of the application.
Response from the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in the composition of the Judges Adam Dolny, Ewa Stefanska and Piotr Telusewicz, dispelled doubts, taking the view that in the event of only a part of the remuneration being granted to the proxy of his own motion, the court should explicitly dismiss the application in the remaining scope. Only such a ruling allows a proxy to lodge an appeal with a higher court, which gives him the full right to contest the amount of the costs allocated.
Meaning of the resolution and practical consequences
The resolution of the Supreme Court is important because the public representatives who feel that the remuneration granted by the court does not correspond to the actual workload receive a clear legal basis for the complaint. In practice, in many cases attorneys perform complex legal activities that may require more time and effort.
Therefore, the decisions of the courts to grant remuneration at a lower level than expected should be transparent and should enable attorneys to challenge that decision before a higher court.
It is also worth noting that this ruling applies not only to lawyers, but also to legal advisers, and can also affect the practice of administrative courts and the remuneration of tax advisers, where there may also be similar doubts.
Summary
The resolution is an important clarification of the question of the right of attorneys of their own motion to appeal the decisions of the courts concerning the granting of compensation for legal aid. It will give the attorneys greater legal certainty in situations where the court grants only part of the requested amount, enabling them to effectively challenge the decision before a higher court.