The issue of paying court fees on appeals and complaints in civil proceedings has been controversial for a long time. It is still unclear what the legislator means by recommending payment to the account of the "competent court".
The specificity of the procedure for bringing those remedies shall be governed by the provisions Article 369(1) and Article 369(1) ed du Article 397(2) Act of 17 November 1964 Civil Procedure Code (i.e.
dated 8 December 2017, Journal of Laws of 2018, item 155) (hereinafter as: (c) according to which the appeal and the complaint in civil proceedings should be brought through the court which issued the contested judgment.
Having regard to the conclusion of the Constitutional Court judgment and the literal interpretation of the section 2 section 1 and 2 Regulations could appear that a charge on complaints or appeals can be paid to both court I and second instance accounts. Unfortunately, for the moment, as the legal environment rightly points out, it would be best to pay dues on appeals or complaints to the account or at the cashier of the court which issued the contested ruling.
„Right”, which one?
Interpretative problems were mainly caused by the content applicable to the day 1 January 2017 Regulation of the Minister of Justice on the payment of court fees in civil matters of 21 March 2016 (Journal of Laws of 2016, item 408). According to section 2 section 1 the said Regulation's judicial fees in civil matters (including charges due for appeals and complaints) in cash and non-cash form had to be paid to the account of the ‘competent court’.
The statement of “competent court” became the subject of consideration of both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
In the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 29 April 2008, SK 11/07 it was pointed out that due to the indeterminate nature of the term ‘competent court’, the provision of the Regulation of 21 March 2016 should be considered unconstitutional.
In view of the arguments contained in the judgment of the Constitutional Court cited above, the Supreme Court in its case-law (e.g.
the order of the Supreme Court of 28 January 2015 I CZ 118/14) expressed the view that the appeal fee (including, respectively, the complaint) may be lodged on the account of the court which issued the judgment in question or on the account of the court which will examine the appeal or complaint in second instances.
With the entry into force of the new regulation governing the payment of judicial fees in civil matters (Regulation of the Minister of Justice on the method of payment of judicial fees in civil matters of 21 March 2016, Journal of Laws of 2016, item 408) Further: ‘The Regulation’) unfortunately, the doubts in this area remain valid.
New interpretation still unclear
According to section 2 Regulations of judicial fees in civil matters may be paid in the form of signs of a court fee, in cash and in non-cash form.
From above indicated third the types of method of payment, as previously in force in the Regulation, found it problematic to make cash and non-cash payments when making appeals and complaints in civil proceedings.
According to section 2 section 1 and 2 Orders, payment of a judicial fee in the form of either cash or cash, must be made on the current account of the revenue of the court responsible for the taking of a procedural action involving payment of a judicial fee or of a court by which, in accordance with the applicable rules, a letter subject to a judicial fee is lodged.
The legal community has focused on the literal and purposive interpretation of the new provision. On the one hand, the conjunction “or” used in the provision quoted above would suggest that fees may alternatively be paid to either the court of first instance or the court of second instance.
On the other hand, for practical reasons, it is the court of first instance that formally reviews the pleadings, including whether the relevant fees have been paid.
If the fee were paid into the account of the court of second instance, the court of first instance would additionally have to verify receipt of the payment, significantly prolonging the formal review. Moreover, if information were not obtained from the court of second instance, the appeal could be rejected.
Having regard to the conclusion of the Constitutional Court judgment and the literal interpretation of the section 2 section 1 and 2 Regulations could appear that a charge on complaints or appeals can be paid to both court I and second instance accounts. Unfortunately, for the moment, as the legal environment rightly points out, it would be best to pay dues on appeals or complaints to the account or at the cashier of the court which issued the contested ruling.
Source: http://prawo.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1107269,klopot-z-oplatami-od-apelacji-i-zazalenia.html