Right to a hearing as a manifestation of the principle of equality of parties and participants in civil proceedings

Abstract

Open AccessRight to a hearing as a manifestation of the principle of equality of parties and participants in civil proceedingsAgnieszka Laskowska-Hulisz, Bartosz MielczarekAgnieszka Laskowska-HuliszSearch for more papers by this author, Bartosz MielczarekSearch for more papers by this authorhttps://doi.org/10.7767/9783205217381.121SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail About1. Introductory RemarksThe Constitution of the Republic of Poland contains many principles, including those applicable to civil proceedings. One of these principles is the principle of equality before the law. The constitutional principle of equality before the law guarantees not only equality before the law but also the right to equal treatment by public authorities (Article 32(1) of the Polish Constitution).1 This principle is understood to mean that all subjects of the law characterised by a given essential feature are to be treated equally and that differences between subjects of the law should be applied to differences in treatment that result from the law.2 The principle’s counterpart under the Civil Procedure Code is the principle of equality of the parties and participants in the proceedings, also known as the principle of equality of the parties and participants in the proceedings3 or the principle of equality and hearing of the parties.4 One of the important manifestations of the implementation of this principle in civil proceedings is that the parties and participants in the proceedings are guaranteed the right to be heard during the proceedings. In doing so, the right to be heard is also of utmost importance to guarantee that the parties or participants in the proceedings can participate in fair proceedings. A restriction or deprivation of this right can lead to far-reaching procedural consequences. It is therefore worthwhile, within the framework of this publication, to briefly outline the implementation of the principle of equality before the law in civil proceedings in order to give an overview of the exercise of one of its manifestations (i. e., the right to a hearing) and to indicate the legal consequences of its infringement in civil proceedings.2. The essence of the principle of equality of the parties and participants in the proceedingsIt has already been pointed out in the Polish inter-war literature that to realise the principle of equality of all citizens before the law and the court, to better arrive at the truth and, finally, to satisfy the elementary requirements of justice, it is necessary to give both parties the opportunity to use all means of struggle permitted by the law to an equal extent in defending their interests in a trial, which is achieved by introducing the principle of equality of the parties into the trial.5The principle of equality of the parties and participants in the proceedings, which was introduced into civil proceedings, consists on the one hand of providing both parties6 with equal protection and on the other hand of providing each party with the opportunity to present its claims in response to the claims of the opposing party (right to a hearing).7 This is the so-called formal aspect of the principle of equality of parties.8On the other hand, the principle of equality of parties in its real aspect manifests itself most visibly, inter alia, in the following situations: the possibility to provide a party acting without a lawyer with the necessary guidance and instructions as to the actions of the proceedings, in accordance, inter alia, with Articles 5 and 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the possibility for an indigent party to benefit from ex officio legal aid; and exemption of the parties from the obligation to bear the costs of the proceedings.9In connection with the amendments to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly consisting of limiting the scope of the court’s information activity, the question arose as to whether the actual equality of parties could be ensured not only by means of instructions and the institution of exemption from court costs but also by means of an active attitude of the court in collecting trial material. It was pointed out that, in fact, it was only after the amendment of Articles 5 and 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the principle of equality of parties in a civil trial became more real. The actual equality of the parties is guaranteed in a civil trial by a number of institutions, including the possibility of instructing parties acting without a professional representative, arising from Articles 5, 210 § 21 and § 2,2 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure.10 However, the court’s activity in the field of collecting trial material should not go beyond the framework set out in the provisions. The court should not seek evidence ex officio; the admission of evidence ex officio should be an exception and should concern evidence which came to the court’s attention in connection with its official activity.11A serious threat to the implementation of the principle of equality of parties may also be posed by those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that give one party of the proceedings specific rights over another party and, as a consequence, place that party in a privileged procedural position and the court in the role of its adviser or limit the rights of one party in comparison with analogous rights of the other party to the proceedings. On the other hand, this principle may be infringed when, in the case of correctly formed legal grounds for its validity, the court does not apply them in a lawful manner, which leads to unequal treatment of the parties to the proceedings and preference of one of them.3. The right to a hearingIn essence, the right to be heard consists of guaranteeing the litigants an equal right to be heard on the opposing party’s claims. It is an expression of the long-established and universally recognised principle of audiatur et altera pars. Thus, both parties should have equal conditions to put forward claims, motions, assertions, evidence and objections and to express their views on the claims, motions, assertions, evidence and objections put forward by the other party to the trial.12 Indeed, in principle, a decision on the merits of the case can only take place after the other party has been heard as to the claim and the defences against it, or at least after the party has been given the opportunity to be heard as to the statements of the other party.13It is not only in Polish law that the right to a hearing is treated as an important manifestation of the principle of equality of parties in civil litigation. German law also devotes considerable attention to the right to be heard (das rechtliche Gehör), which is regarded as the most important incident of the principle of equal treatment.14 Austrian law, in contrast, refers to the principle of the judicial hearing of both parties (der Grundsatz des beiderseitigen rechtlichen Gehörs), according to which anyone whose rights are affected by a judicial decision has the right to be heard in the proceedings conducted with a view to making that decision. That is, he or she has the right to be heard on the facts and on the law.15It is also worth pointing out that the right to be heard in civil proceedings is not only a manifestation of the principle of equality of parties and participants in these proceedings but also a guarantee that these proceedings meet the requirements for a fair trial.16The right to be heard is expressed in particular in those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that create the possibility for the parties to actually participate actively in civil proceedings. By way of example, the following provisions may be mentioned here. Pursuant to the wording of Article 149(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the parties shall be notified of public hearings, which guarantees their participation in each public hearing on the same basis regardless of whether they are the plaintiff or the defendant. On the other hand, if the court finds irregularities in the service of the summons, or if the absence of a party is caused by an extraordinary event or other obstacle known to the court that can not be overcome, the court should postpone the hearing (Article 214 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The defendant, pursuant to Article 2051 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has the right and even the obligation to file a response to the statement of claim, and the other party to the dispute may also file a response to the appeal (Article 3731 of the Code of Civil Procedure) or, for example, a response to the cassation appeal (Article 3987 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In addition, pursuant to Article 2053 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in justified cases, particularly in abstruse cases or cases of deliberation, the presiding judge may order the exchange of preparatory pleadings by the parties, indicating the order in which the pleadings are to be filed, the deadlines within which the pleadings are to be filed and the circumstances to be clarified. It is important to note that an order to file preparatory pleadings may be issued against both parties to the trial, regardless of which side they are on, and this also promotes the right to be heard. In addition, pursuant to Article 210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the hearing takes place in such a way that, after the case has been called, the parties – first the plaintiff and then the defendant –make oral submissions of their claims and motions and present assertions and evidence in support thereof. In addition, the parties may indicate the legal grounds for their demands and motions. If a party is absent from the hearing, the presiding judge or the reporting judge appointed by the presiding judge shall present the party’s requests, assertions and evidence in the case file (Article 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In addition, the presiding judge closes the hearing after the evidence has been taken and the parties have been given the floor (Article 224(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure). Also, in the cases that are heard in closed session, such as in the proceedings by writ of summons, injunction proceedings and electronic writ of summons, the defendant has the right to express his or her opinion by filing an appeal against the decision issued in the case. This party is served with the order for payment by the court, together with a copy of the statement of claim and appendices, and a time limit is set for filing an appropriate appeal, which causes the case to be heard again by the court of first instance (Article 4802 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure). At the same time, it should be noted that in order to increase the efficiency and speed of the proceedings, the legislator added Article 2261 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which, whenever the law provides for the hearing of the parties or other persons, according to the circumstances, this may be done by summoning the parties to make the relevant statements at a meeting or setting a time limit for taking a position in a pleading or by means of remote communication, provided that they give certainty as to the person making the statement.Besides, in some provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the legislator has indicated that certain actions of the court, although they are related to the procedural actions of only one party or one participant of the proceedings, are to be performed towards both parties to the trial (all participants of the proceedings), such as serving a default judgment (Article 343, first sentence). As a rule, securing evidence should take place in the presence of the opponent, and his/her summons is not necessary only in urgent situations or when the opponent cannot be named or his/her whereabouts are unknown (Articles 313 and 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure).The doctrine points to other provisions serving to guarantee the right to be heard, such as Article 1561 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of which, if necessary, at the hearing the presiding judge may instruct the parties about the probable outcome of the case in light of the claims and evidence submitted up to that point.17 Even before the entry into force of this provision, the judicature noted the existence of the court’s information obligation in regard to drawing the parties’ attention to the probable outcome, existing within the framework of the substantive management of the trial as an element of the right to be heard, which, in turn, was seen in the context of Articles 2 and 45(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, taking into account the necessity to meet the postulate of procedural economy and the proper design of the proceedings, especially in the trial mode.18 Such an instruction should lead to the possibility for the parties to express their opinion as to the content of the instruction and possible amendment of the request or motion or submission of new facts and evidence. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the instruction of the court as to the likely outcome of the case is not binding on the court.The above-mentioned provisions guaranteeing a party’s right to be heard under Article 13(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to non-procedural proceedings and to the participants in the proceedings acting therein. However, it cannot be overlooked that in non-litigation proceedings, one can also find provisions that guarantee the implementation of the right to be heard in these proceedings. By way of example, Article 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be mentioned here, on the basis of which the court ex officio ensures that every interested party takes part in the proceedings. Thus, if it turns out that the interested party is not a participant in the proceedings, the court will summon him/her to participate in the case, and if his/her whereabouts are unknown, it will appoint ex officio a curator to replace the interested party. Moreover, an interested party who did not participate in the proceedings may, pursuant to Article 524(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, file a complaint for the resumption of the proceedings due to deprivation of the possibility to act.19 In addition, the provision that obliges the court to hear the participants of the proceedings is Article 514 § 1, third sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which, despite the fact that a hearing has not been appointed, the court may hear the participants at a court session or request written statements from them before deciding the case. Among the provisions on non-procedural proceedings regulating the various types of proceedings, one can also find a number of special provisions that guarantee the right to be heard therein, such as Article 533 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which, before issuing an order declaring the missing person dead, the court should hear the persons close to the missing person as far as possible; Article 547 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the person who is the subject of an application for incapacitation should be heard immediately after the commencement of the proceedings; Article 548 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the person affected by the application for incapacitation must be heard before an interim counsel is appointed;20 and Article 565 § 1 of the Code of Civil Proceedings, under which the decision on important family matters in the absence of an agreement between the spouses, as well as the granting of permission to carry out an act for which the consent of the other spouse is needed or to which the other spouse has objected, may take place only after the applicant’s spouse has been given an opportunity to be heard, unless it is impossible or expedient to hear him or her; and Article 576 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the guardianship court shall hear the legal representative of the person concerned before making a decision on the merits of the case. In more important cases, it should also, if possible, hear the person’s relatives; for example, according to Article 582 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decision on a child’s essential matters, on which there is no agreement between the parents, may be made only after the parents have been given an opportunity to make statements, unless hearing them would be connected with undue difficulties.To conclude this part of the discussion, it should be strongly emphasised that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code contain a number of legal bases aimed at guaranteeing the right of the parties and participants in the proceedings to be heard. The exercise of this right by a party or participant in the proceedings may consist in filing a pleading or speaking for the record. As a general rule, it is up to the parties and participants in the proceedings whether they intend to exercise their right or remain inactive. The court cannot compel them to exercise their rights; however, within the limits set by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the court should create conditions that enable the parties and participants in the proceedings to exercise their right to be heard.4. Procedural consequences of deprivation of the right to a hearingA breach of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, which guarantees a party the right to a hearing, may lead to far-reaching procedural consequences. This infringement constitutes a violation of procedural regulations and if, as a result of such violations, a party was deprived of an opportunity to defend its rights, we are dealing with a qualified procedural defect leading to invalidity of proceedings.21 Pursuant to Article 379(5) of Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego (the Code of Civil Procedure), proceedings are invalid when a party is deprived of the possibility to defend his or her rights. The invalidity of proceedings may be taken into account by the court of second instance hearing the case ex officio (Article 378 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure), as well as by the Supreme Court hearing the cassation appeal (Article 39813 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Depriving a party of the possibility to defend his/her rights is also the basis for resumption of proceedings (Article 401(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure). Moreover, as has already been mentioned above, in the case of depriving an interested party or a participant of non-procedural proceedings of the possibility to act in non-procedural proceedings, the basis for the resumption is Article 524 of the Code of Civil Procedure.In seeking to ensure the parties’ right to be heard, the court is not, however, obliged to grant the parties further time limits to take a position (orally or in writing) if numerous pleadings are exchanged in the course of the proceedings and it appears from the circumstances of the case that those pleadings do not add much to the case. Sometimes litigants, with a view to prolonging the proceedings or influencing the other party (e. g., in order to exert pressure on him/her), may abuse their right to be heard by filing successive letters in the case which, however, do not introduce any new claims or evidence but merely repeat earlier claims or statements or rightly include new claims, but these claims relate to circumstances that are not material to the case. Therefore, the court cannot be denied the right to terminate the exchange of pleadings by not setting a time limit to respond to them if they are filed with an abuse of the procedural right referred to Article 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a case, it is the court that may ‘punish’ the abusing party by applying the measures indicated in Article 2262 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the court is not obliged to force the passive party to become active in the course of the proceedings, as the court does not have any coercive measures at its disposal in this respect. The passive behaviour in the proceedings of a party or a participant who had a legitimate opportunity to exercise the right to be heard but did not use it does not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and cannot constitute a legitimate ground or allegation for an appeal. Nor can it be analysed in the context of depriving a party or participant in the proceedings of the right to a fair civil trial.5. ConclusionsThe principle of equality of parties and participants in the proceedings derives from the constitutional principle of equality before the law. This principle is one of the guiding principles of civil proceedings,22 and it applies in all types of these proceedings. An important manifestation of the implementation of this principle is the right to a hearing, which every litigant and participant in non-litigation proceedings is entitled to regardless of the procedural role he or she plays. Differences exist only in the scope of the exercise of this principle, and such differences result from the differences in procedural roles and related rights; thus, if the plaintiff, for example, files a statement of claim and the defendant files an answer to the statement of claim, one party files an appeal, and the other party files an answer to the appeal.In the Code of Civil Procedure, the legislator has introduced a number of provisions aimed at ensuring the parties’ right to be heard. The lawful and legitimate use of these provisions by the court is an important condition for ensuring the exercise of this right and guaranteeing the fair conduct of the proceedings. It is worth recalling at this point that it is the court’s duty to allow the parties to exercise their right to be heard. It should be emphasised here that a court unjustifiably depriving a party of the right to be heard in regard to the factual and legal circumstances of a case may commit a qualified procedural fault resulting from depriving a party of the opportunity to defend its rights. In conclusion, it is worth referring to the view expressed in the literature on the subject that a procedural law should fully realise a person’s right to a court as a fundamental human right and ensure that persons and entities in need of legal protection proceed as expeditiously as possible, ensuring equal treatment of the parties and participants in the proceedings, based on their activity and procedural resourcefulness and limiting the possibility of abuse of procedural rights.23ReferencesLiterature1 See comments on this principle in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, M. Ziolkowski, Zasada równości w prawie [Principle of equality in law], PiP 2005, z 5, p. 94 et seq.2 See J. Falski, Ewolucja wykładni zasady równości w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego [Evolution of the interpretation of the principle of equality in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal], State and Law 2000, no. 1, p. 52.3 See, inter alia, E. Waśkowski, System procesu cywilnego [Theoretical introduction. Principles of rational court system and civil trial], Vilnius 1932, pp. 108–109; T. Ereciński, K. Weitz, Prawda i równość stron w postępowaniu cywilnym a orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego [Truth and equality of parties in civil proceedings and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal], in: Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego a Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Materiały Ogólnopolskiego Zjazdów Katedr i Zakładów Postępowania Cywilnego Serock 24–26 September 2009, eds. T. Ereciński, K. Weitz, Warszawa 2010, p. 44 and p. 48.4 It is also referred to as the principle of equality of arms (der Waffengleichheit), see, inter alia, A. Blomeyer, Zivilprozeβrecht. Erkenntnisverfahren, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg 1963, p. 99.5 E. Waskowski, Podręcznik procesu cywilnego [Handbook of civil trial], Vilnius 1932, pp. 76–77.6 The remarks made about the parties should also apply mutatis mutandis to the participants in the proceedings.7 W. Siedlecki, in: J. Jodłowski, W. Siedlecki, Postępowanie cywilne. Część ogólna [Civil Procedure. General part], Warszawa 1958, p. 158 et seq; E. Wengerek, Zasada równości w procesie cywilnym [The principle of equality in the civil proces], PiP 1995, z 11, p. 778; W. Broniewicz, Postępowanie cywilne w zarysie [Civil procedure in outline], Warszawa 1973, p. 65; P. Rylski, Działanie sądu z urzędu a podstawa faktyczna wyroku cywilnego [Ex officio action of the court and the factual basis of the civil judgment], Warszawa 2009, p. 109; T. Ereciński, K. Weitz, (above n. 3), p. 47. See an extensive discussion on this subject, in: A. Góra-Baszczykowska, Zasada równości stron w procesie cywilnym [The principle of equality in the civil proces], Warszawa 2008, p. 72 et seq. 8 See also J. Jodłowski, in: Postępowanie cywilnego [Civil Proceedings], in J. Lapierre, J. Jodłowski, Z. Resich, T. Misiuk-Jodłowska, K. Weitz, Warszawa 2016, p. 153.9 A. Góra-Błaszczykowska, Zasada równości stron w aspekcie zmiany przepisów art. 5 i 212 k.p.c. i wynikających z nich obowiązków sądu w postępowaniu (uwagi na tle orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego), [The principle of equality of parties in the aspect of the amendment of the provisions of Articles 5 and 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the resulting obligations of the court in the proceedings (remarks against the background of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court)], PS 2005, no. 10, pp. 86–87. Exemption from court costs is also analysed in relation to the Polish Constitution from the point of view of the right to privacy and the right to court. See A. Banaszewski, Wniosek o zwolnienie od kosztów sądowych w sprawach cywilnych a konstytucyjne prawo do ochrony prywatności [Application for exemption from court costs in civil cases and the constitutional right to privacy], in: Konstytucjonalizacja postępowania cywilnego, ed. Ł. Błaszczak, Wrocław 2015, p. 271 et seq.; A. Marciniak, Realizacja prawa do sądu a zwolnienie od kosztów sądowych. Uwagi na marginesie aktualnego orzecznictwa sądowego [Implementation of the right to court and exemption from court costs. Observations on the margin of current judicial decisions], in: Konstytucjonalizacja postępowania cywilnego, ed. Ł. Błaszczak, Wrocław 2015, pp. 283 et seq.10 A. Góra-Błaszczykowska, (above n. 9), p. 87; Also, Zasada równości stron w procesie cywilnym, Warszawa 2008, p. 177 et seq. So also T. Pietrzykowski, B. Wojciechowski, Równość, prawda i sprawiedliwość w procesie cywilnym. Rozważania na tle nowelizacji k.p.c. [Equality, truth and justice in the civil process. Considerations against the background of the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code], Palestra 2004, no. 9–10, p. 15.11 See also A. Góra-Błaszczykowska, (above n. 9), pp. 259–262.12 See J. Jodłowski, (above n. 8), p. 153.13 Exceptions to this rule relate to proceedings in which the court gives a decision on the merits of the case on the basis of the statement of claim and the documents attached thereto, without hearing the defendant (e. g., in proceedings by writ of summons or by order). Instead, the defendant exercises his or her right to be heard by filing an appeal, which gives the court of first instance the opportunity to retry the case.14 See A. Blomeyer, Zivilprozeβrecht. Erkenntnisverfahren, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg 1963, p. 99; M. Schwab, Zivilprozessrecht, Heidelberg-München-landsberg-Frechen-Hamburg 2010, p. 84 et seq.; O. Jauering, Zivilprozessrecht, München, pp. 118–121.15 See W. H. Rechberger, D.A. Simotta, Zivilrpzessrecht. Erkenntnisverfahren, Wien 2010, p. 237; H. Dolinar, R. Holzhammer, Zivilprozeβrecht I. Grundstudium, Freistadt 2005, p. 201.16 See H. Pietrzkowski, Prawo do rzetelnego procesu w świetle zmienionej procedury cywilnej [Right to a fair trial in the light of amended civil procedure], Przegląd Sądowy 2005, no. 10, p. 51.17 K. Gajda-Roszczynialska, in: Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Koszty sądowe w sprawach cywilnych. Dochodzenie roszczeń w postępowaniu grupowym. Przepisy przejściowe. Komentarz do zmian. [Court costs in civil cases. Investigation of claims in group proceedings. Transitional provisions. Commentary to the amendments. Volume I and II], T. Zembrzuski, ed., Warszawa 2020, LEX, commentary to art. 1561 k.p.c.18 See, inter alia, judgments of the Supreme Court: of 2.12.2011, III CSK 136/11, LEX no. 1131125; of 19.03.2015, IV CSK 368/14, LEX no. 1657598; of 27.04.2016, II CSK 324/15, LEX no. 2071199; of 27.04.2016, II CSK 556/15, OSNC 2017/3, item 34; of 13.04.2017, I CSK 270/16, LEX no. 2288106; of 14.12.2017, V CSK 121/17, LEX no. 2460480, and the resolution of the Supreme Court of 17.02.2016, III CZP 108/15, OSNC 2017/2, item 14.19 See W. Siedlecki, Zasady naczelne postępowania cywilnego w świetle przepisów nowego kodeksu postępowania cywilnego, [The chief principles of civil proceedings in light of the provisions of the new code of civil procedure], Studia Cywilistyczne 1966, vol. VII, p. 28.20 The possibility to dispense with a hearing exists only in the cases referred to in Article 556 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.21 Closer K. Weitz, Związanie sądu granicami żądania w procesie cywilnym [Binding of the court by the limits of the claim in a civil trial], in: Aurea Praxis Aurea Theoria. Pamiątkowa ku Czci Profesora Tadeusza Erecińskiego, t. I, eds. J. Gudowski, K. Weitz, Warszawa 2011, pp. 681–683; the same, Skutki naruszenia art. 321 § 1 k.p.c. [Consequences of a violation of Article 321 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure], in: Proces cywilny. Nauka, kodyfikacja, praktyka. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Feliksowi Zedlerowi, [Civil Process. Science-Codification-Practice. Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Feliks Zedler], eds. P. Grzegorczyk, K. Knoppek, M. Walasik, Warszawa 2012, p. 349 et seq. So also W. Siedlecki, (above n. 19), p. 28. Also:, Zasady wymiaru sprawiedliwości i naczelne zasady procesu cywilnego w świetle orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego [Principles of justice and guiding principles of civil trial in the light of Supreme Court case law], Zeszyty Naukowe Instytutu Badania Prawa Sądowego, Warszawa 1978, no. 10, p. 51. See also the ruling of the Supreme Court of 3.5.1966, III CO 12/66, OSNCP 1966, no 11, item 182.22 For a more detailed discussion of the concept of the chief principles of civil procedure: W. Berutowicz, O pojęciu naczelnych zasad postępowania cywilnego [On the concept of the chief principles of civil proceedings], Studia Cywilistyczne 1975, vol. XXV-XXVI.23 See T. Ereciński, O potrzebie nowego kodeksu postępowania cywilnego [On the need for a new code of civil procedurę], Państwo i Prawo 2004, no. 4. References Banaszewski A., Wniosek o zwolnienie od kosztów sądowych w sprawach cywilnych a konstytucyjne prawo do ochrony prywatności [Application for exemption from court costs in civil cases and the constitutional right to privacy], in: Konstytucjonalizacja postępowania cywilnego, ed. Ł. Błaszczak, Wrocław 2015. Google ScholarBerutowicz W., O pojęciu naczelnych zasad postępowania cywilnego [On the concept of the chief principles of civil proceedings], Studia Cywilistyczne 1975, vol. XXV-XXVI. Google ScholarBlomeyer A., Zivilprozeβrecht. Erkenntnisverfahren, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg 1963. Google ScholarBroniewicz W., Postępowanie cywilne w zarysie [Civil procedure in outline], Warszawa 1973. Google ScholarDolinar H., Holzhammer R., Zivilprozeβrecht I. Grundstudium, Freistadt 2005. Google ScholarEreciński T., O potrzebie nowego kodeksu postępowania cywilnego [On the need for a new code of civil procedurę], Państwo i Prawo 2004, no. 4. Google ScholarEreciński T., Weitz K., Prawda i równość stron w postępowaniu cywilnym a orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego [Truth and equality of parties in civil proceedings and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal], in: Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego a Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Materiały Ogólnopolskiego Zjazdów Katedr i Zakładów Postępowania Cywilnego Serock k. Warszawa 24–26 September 2009, eds. T. Ereciński, K. Weitz, Warszawa 2010. Google ScholarFalski J., Ewolucja wykładni zasady równości w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego [Evolution of the interpretation of the principle of equality in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal], Państwo i Prawo 2000, no. 1. Google ScholarGajda-Roszczynialska K., in: Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Koszty sądowe w sprawach cywilnych. Dochodzenie roszczeń w postępowaniu grupowym. Przepisy przejściowe. Komentarz do zmian. [Court costs in civil cases. Investigation of claims in group proceedings. Transitional provisions. Commentary to the amendments. Volume I and II], T. Zembrzuski, ed., Warszawa 2020, LEX, commentary to art. 1561 k.p.c. Google ScholarGóra-Błaszczykowska A., Zasada równości stron w aspekcie zmiany przepisów art. 5 i 212 k.p.c. i wynikających z nich obowiązków sądu w postępowaniu (uwagi na tle orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego), [The principle of equality of parties in the aspect of the amendment of the provisions of Articles 5 and 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the resulting obligations of the court in the proceedings (remarks against the background of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court)], Przegląd Sądowy 2005, no. 10. Google ScholarGóra-Baszczykowska A., Zasada równości stron w procesie cywilnym [The principle of equality in the civil proces], Warszawa 2008. Google ScholarJauering O., Zivilprozessrecht, München 2002. Google ScholarJodłowski J., in: Postępowanie cywilnego [Civil Proceedings], in J. Lapierre, J. Jodłowski, Z. Resich, T. Misiuk-Jodłowska, K. Weitz, Warszawa 2016. Google ScholarMarciniak A., Realizacja prawa do sądu a zwolnienie od kosztów sądowych. Uwagi na marginesie aktualnego orzecznictwa sądowego, [Implementation of the right to court and exemption from court costs. Observations on the margin of current judicial decisions], in: Konstytucjonalizacja postępowania cywilnego, ed. Ł. Błaszczak, Wrocław 2015. Google ScholarPietrzkowski H., Prawo do rzetelnego procesu w świetle zmienionej procedury cywilnej [Right to a fair trial in the light of amended civil procedure], Przegląd Sądowy 2005, no. 10. Google ScholarRechberger W. H., Simotta D. A., Zivilrpzessrecht. Erkenntnisverfahren, Wien 2010. Google ScholarRylski P., Działanie sądu z urzędu a podstawa faktyczna wyroku cywilnego [Ex officio action of the court and the factual basis of the civil judgment], Warszawa 2009. Google ScholarSchwab M., Zivilprozessrecht, Heidelberg-München-landsberg-Frechen-Hamburg 2010. Google ScholarSiedlecki W., in: Postępowanie cywilne. Część ogólna [Civil Procedure. General part], eds. J. Jodłowski, W. Siedlecki, Warszawa 1958. Google ScholarSiedlecki W., Zasady naczelne postępowania cywilnego w świetle przepisów nowego kodeksu postępowania cywilnego, [The chief principles of civil proceedings in light of the provisions of the new code of civil procedure], Studia Cywilistyczne 1966. Google ScholarSiedlecki W., Zasady wymiaru sprawiedliwości i naczelne zasady procesu cywilnego w świetle orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego [Principles of justice and guiding principles of civil trial in the light of Supreme Court case law], Zeszyty Naukowe Instytutu Badania Prawa Sądowego, Warszawa 1978, no. 10. Google ScholarWaskowski E., Podręcznik procesu cywilnego [Handbook of civil trial], Vilnius 1932. Google ScholarWaśkowski E., System procesu cywilnego [Theoretical introduction. Principles of rational court system and civil trial], Vilnius 1932. Google ScholarWeitz K., Związanie sądu granicami żądania w procesie cywilnym [Binding of the court by the limits of the claim in a civil trial], in: Aurea Praxis Aurea Theoria. Pamiątkowa ku Czci Profesora Tadeusza Erecińskiego, t. I, eds. J. Gudowski, K. Weitz, Warszawa 2011. Google ScholarWeitz K., Skutki naruszenia art. 321 § 1 k.p.c. [Consequences of a violation of Article 321 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure], in: Proces cywilny. Nauka, kodyfikacja, praktyka. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Feliksowi Zedlerowi [Civil Process. Science-Codification-Practice. Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Feliks Zedler], eds. P. Grzegorczyk, K. Knoppek, M. Walasik, Warszawa 2012. Google ScholarWengerek E., Zasada równości w procesie cywilnym [The principle of equality in the civil proces], Państwo i Prawo 1995, z 11. Google ScholarZiółkowski M., Zasada równości w prawie [Principle of equality in law], Państwo i Prawo 2005, z. 5. Google Scholar Previous chapter Next chapter FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Download book coverLegal Area StudiesVolume 5 1st editionISBN: 978-3-205-21737-4 eISBN: 978-3-205-21738-1HistoryPublished online:March 2023 Information© 2023 Böhlau Verlag, Zeltgasse 1, A-1080 Wien, ein Imprint der Brill-GruppeThis publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial 4.0 International license, at https://doi.org/10.7767/9783205217381. For a copy of this license go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Any use in cases other than those permitted by this license requires the prior written permission from the publisher.PDF download