Interpretation of Article 365 § KPC [judgment of jurisprudence]
It is based on:
http://www.sn.pl/sites/a jurisprudence/orders3/i%20csk%20323-18-1.pdf
http://www.sn.pl/sites/laws/orders3/iii%20czp%20109-20.pdf
http://www.sn.pl/sites/a jurisprudence/jurisprudence3/v%20cskp%2073-21.pdf
https://www.saos.org.pl/judgments/459270
Pursuant to Article 365(1) of the Code of civilian Procedure (k.p.c.), the final judgement is binding not only on the parties and the court which issued it, but besides on another courts and another public authorities and public administrations, and in cases provided for in the law, another persons.
In practice, it is crucial whether and to what extent, as a consequence of Article 365(1) of the Code, the binding force of the judgement creates a state of binding on another courts by factual findings or legal assessments which have been the basis for the ruling on the same legal relation previously given.
That provision shall be correlated with Article 187(1)(1) in principalipio k.p.c., imposing an work on the claimant to find the request, and with Article 321(1) k.p.c. on the prohibition of ruling above the request. The Court of First Instance has the right and the work to find only what the plaintiff requests; the subject substance of the case is only a procedural claim. The provisions cited above, like the very essence of the rule of availability, do not let the court to accept that there is more to be ruling on than is the consequence of a request made by the plaintiff.
In the light of Article 365(1) k.p.c., it is not in any way an obstacle to making a self-assessment in subsequent proceedings of legal matters, e.g. a limitation charge. In the case-law of the ultimate Court, it is dominant to share the view that the limits of the binding power in question should be assessed in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 366 of the Code of Conduct with respect to the limits of the seriousness of the judgment. Consequently, the binding force of subsequent proceedings is obtained only by the findings concerning what has been decided on in connection with the grounds of the dispute (decision to request in conjunction with its factual basis.
It appears that, in the event of an interior contradiction between an earlier final judgment, between the same Parties which, by reason of the decision, may constitute a preliminary ruling in the case in question, The court ruling in the final judgement is not bound by the sentiment of specified a judgment, but is bound by the legal assessment in so far as the final judgement does not alter the factual findings set out in that earlier judgment. In the event of a contradiction in the justification of the earlier judgment, which does not let for a reconstruction of the grounds for the ruling, specified a final judgement does not constitute a preliminary ruling in both the operative part and its justification.
In its resolution of 8 November 2019, III CSK 27/19 (OSNC 2020, No 6 item 48), The ultimate Court held that the explanation of the contract on the basis of which the claimant was entitled to compensation for the provision of services is not subject to a binding judgement (Article 365(1) of the General Court) in a case for another part of the remuneration provided for in that contract for the provision of services. In the message of reasons, he stressed that if the parties show the same care and activity in their separate proceedings, they supply the same evidence to show their claims and rise the same allegations, that, for the reasons set out by the ultimate Court in its judgement of 29 March 1994, III CZP 29/94, the assessment of the individual issues and, ultimately, the result of those cases should be fundamentally the same for them. However, compliance in this field is sometimes required by a court which examines another case between the parties in peculiar carefully and judges it, taking into account besides the arguments cited by the court in the erstwhile case, and in the context of Article 178(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the principles of directness and freedom of assessment of evidence, it is impossible to deny to the court, erstwhile it cites serious arguments, the power to another assessment carried out in the case of evidence which may lead to another findings on facts and, consequently, another assessment of a question which weighs on the result of the procedure, from that assessment which another court has taken in a separate case, in peculiar that Article 365(1) of the General Court refers to the binding of a judgement alternatively than to factual findings in which the content of the connecting organization is besides reconstructed.
The position of the ultimate Court on the scope of the rulings in force pursuant to Article 365(1) of the General Court is characterised by far-reaching diversity and inconsistency. Over the last 20 years, both the line of case-law, according to which the binding power of a court ruling applies only to its operative part and the view that the binding power of a judgement besides extends to its justification. Both positions are represented by at least respective judgments. In addition, there is simply a tiny compromise line. This all makes it impossible to talk of the uniform or dominant meaning of Article 365(1) of the ultimate Court.
AND LINE
It is characteristic of the findings in the ultimate Court judgement of 13 January 2000, II CKN 655/98, that: “The object of material validity is the final result of the decision, not the reasons which led to it. The Court of First Instance is so not bound by both the factual findings made in another case and the legal views expressed in the message of reasons for its judgment"3 and in the judgement of 23 May 2002, IV CKN 1073/00 that, as laid down in Article 365(1) of the General Court, ‘the binding power of the final judgement concerns the binding of the substance of the operative part alternatively than the justification, containing the presentation of the evidence and the assessment of its reliability’ The binding force of the judgement concerns only the decision contained in it, not its motives, whether factual or legal.
This led the ultimate Court to the view that the judgement was binding only on the merits of a circumstantial procedural claim, as the ruling is contained in the judgment.
II LINE
This view is sometimes formulated with caution. The ultimate Court states in any judgments that the mention to the message of reasons is to be ancillary and that its binding power is limited only to the degree that recourse to the judgement is necessary. As the ultimate Court stated: ‘If, on the basis of the operative part of the final judgement itself, it is impossible to find precisely the subject substance of the court’s ruling, then, in order to clarify the limits of its binding power, the justification of the judgement may be used, but this is possible only if, on the basis of the operative part of the judgement itself, ‘there are doubts’ as to the scope of the binding operative part of the judgment.
III LINES: A compromise position
The compromise position is presented by the judgement of SN of 20 September 2011, III SK 5/11, OSNP 2012 No. 19–20, item 253.
In 1 place, the ultimate Court states that: ‘The binding of a court by a judgement given in another case must be understood as excluding the anticipation of contesting in the settled case the findings and legal assessments contained in the final ruling of another case in question, but between the same parties’, and so appears to limit the binding power of the judgement only to ‘resolution’, i.e. to its operative part. However, at another point in the message of reasons, the ultimate Court points out that: ‘The court is so obliged to consider that a legal question which has already been the subject of a decision in another case and which is of relevance in the case before it, is as adopted in a final earlier judgment’, whereas, as mentioned above, it is hard to mention to a preliminary ruling in isolation from its reasoning, which describes the factual and legal situation on which the ruling is based.
Summary
This analysis shows that there is no reason to limit the concept of a judgement to its essence.
This view makes it possible to find the scope of the binding power of the ruling. The binding force is covered by the actual state and besides by the legal state (understanding as an effect of subsuming the legal standards to an appropriate factual state alternatively than as an abstract explanation of the provisions of the established law), which led to an appropriate settlement. Only this is within the meaning of the word "judgment." This, on the another hand, which was not the motive for the decision, does not fall within the concept of ‘judgment’ due to the fact that it does not, in fact, justify it, even though it is in the editorial unit called justification.
Material based on the origin papers indicated above
AUTHORS:
- Marcin Skonieczny – Legal adviser
THE AUTHOR AND REPEAL RIGHTS Act of 21 May 2021 (OJ of 2021, item 1062)
Article 29 [citation] It is allowed to quote in works constituting a self-contained full of fragments of widespread works and widespread works of art, photographic works or fine works in their entirety, to the degree justified by the purposes of the quote, specified as explanations, polemics, critical or technological analysis, teaching or rights of the genre of creativity.
