The opinion was given by a major proposal to amend the civil procedure, which is to fix what did not work after the reforms with 2019 and 2023 Corrected Article 148[1] k.p.c., so that public sittings are the rule, not classified. There is also a provision to history that imposes on professional attorneys a number of duties on the drafting of procedural documents, among others, so that evidence applications are clearly identified in the lawsuit.
Undisclosure was supposed to help during the pandemic.
one from the changes that caused much controversy, there was an amendment Article 148[1]. In addition, classified sittings were a medicine for covid restrictions in courts, then they were to help relieve post-covid backlogs. July 2023 new section 3 Article 148 [1] k.p.c., according to which the party, if he wants a public hearing, must, and this In the first a pleading, requesting hearing at the hearing.
Now this provision is to be amended again. Thus, according to the draft novel, the court will be able to recognise the case in full or in part at a secret sitting if:
- the defendant has accepted the application;
- the facts relevant to the outcome of the case are uncontested;
- the facts which the court considers do not allow the request to be taken into account.
In certain cases Under points 2 and 3 the chairman, directing the matter to be examined at a secret meeting, shall inform the parties thereof and shall set a time limit of at least two weeks for submission of preparatory letters, indicating, where necessary, the order for their submission.
What should be noted is not going back to what was before the changes with 2023 Earlier, according to Article 148[1], the court was able to recognise the case at a secret hearing when the defendant acknowledged the action or when, after the parties had filed their pleadings and documents, including after the pleas or opposition to the order for payment or opposition to an absent judgment, the court considered, having regard to all the claims and evidence submitted, that a hearing was not necessary. But he was section 3, according to which the examination of the case at a secret sitting was inadmissible if the party In the first the pleading applied for a hearing, unless the defendant has accepted the action.
In first instance proceedings, the transparency of the ruling should be limited to specific exceptions, which are not met by the editorial board Article 148[1] as it stands.
It also needs to be stressed that transparency is not only an important value for the parties to the process, so the absence of an initiative of the party to open the case cannot always constitute a sufficient argument for the repeal of disclosure.
It is also important that situations in which the court first the instance can be judged at a secret sitting, they were readable to the parties and did not create a field for arbitrariness - indicated in the justification.
It is added that the proposal is a reaction to the developed practice, according to which applications for "hearing at a hearing" (previously – for a hearing) are normally submitted automatically, without considering the actual need to appoint a hearing, as they are taken into account in the application forms and in the response to the application.
Judges Unconvinced of Change
Some judges, just after the Codification Commission made the draft public, stressed that such a change would only make the situation in the courts worse. In the current personnel problems, classified meetings allow for a smooth settlement of cases.
Restrictions in this area will definitely prolong them - he says one the Judges of the District Court. In a similar tone, Judge Grzegorz Karaś of the Wrocław District Court admitted that he was a supporter of the recognition of cases at a secret sitting.
"Statistical evidence shows that in terms of the number of cases dealt with in a classified sitting, on average more than half of cases are dealt with in the regional courts. Addressing the majority of cases to public hearings will result in an even greater burden on courts and an even longer time for cases to be examined.
The courts will become even more inefficient," said Judge Karas.
Judge Monika Biała from the District Court for Wrocław-Krzyków in Wrocław indicated that the proposed new wording of the provision Article 148[1] KPC is the wrong direction. In practice, it aims to completely eliminate the possibility of issuing judgments at a secret sitting. However, now a large proportion of the rulings fall under this procedure, and the attorneys themselves often apply for a judgment at a secret sitting because they realize that the ruling is then decided two-three times faster – she said.
Evidence in petitum? To be repealed
In 2023 the Code of Civil Procedure has been introduced Article 128[1], which imposes a number of duties on professional attorneys in the drafting of procedural documents, inter alia, evidence applications must be clearly identified in the application. Lawyers have for a long time warned that something that was supposed to improve the procedure forces in practice the preparation of elaborate writings and the duplication of certain content.
≫I understand the purpose of the introduction Article 128[1] k.p.c. In Polish realities, procedural writings – also submitted by professional representatives – are often not properly structured, or even in an elementary manner ordered. Sometimes they resemble a stream of consciousness.
The lack of structure of the pleadings hinders and prolongs the proceedings – both from the point of view of the parties and the court – he emphasised in a discussion with Prawo.pl Prof. Marcin Dziurda from the Department of Civil Procedure of the University of Warsaw, member of the Civil Law Codification Commission.
He also pointed out that the regulation Article 128[1] However, k.p.c. is exceptionally unsuccessful. The content of the provision is not clear, it uses wording that does not have a code definition. He refers to the "justification" of the letter, which is not currently defined in k.p.c.≪ – he explained.
However, the explanatory memorandum states that this amendment does not undermine the need for future solutions aimed at precise structuring of procedural writings, which, as noted, should be considered necessary in view of the fact that these writings are often extensive, the development of IT techniques allowing for extensive use in their preparation of judicature and doctrine and the possibility of perceptive courts taking into account the number of cases identified.