We invitation you to get to know the article Veronica Shevcin which she discussed the powers of the ultimate Court and its elected rulings.
The ultimate Court is simply a body of judicial authority, taking care of the justice strategy in the Republic of Poland. It serves as the alleged judicational supervision of average and military courts, i.e. it assesses the consistency of their judgments and uniformity in the application of the law. In addition, he is liable for establishing the validity of elections to the Sejm and the Senate, a national referendum, and the election of the president of the Republic. In addition, it examines electoral protests and performs another duties provided for in the Constitution and another provisions of law, especially in the ultimate Court Act.
It is headed by the First president of the ultimate Court, head of the proceedings of the court and acting as representative. He is appointed by the president of the Republic for a word of 6 years from among the candidates presented by the General Assembly of the ultimate Court Judges.
The ruling of the court can be understood as a ruling and decision-making act ending a circumstantial procedural action. Its main forms are judgement and resolution. The judgement is simply a judgement of a court which is the final settlement of a legal dispute by a judgement of its substantive nature. However, the judgement may be abrogated or amended by a higher court or by another remedies specified as review. The order is simply a form of judgement of a court which may be given at different stages of the proceedings and may, but not necessarily, end the full proceedings.
An example of a court ruling given in the form of a judgement is Supreme Court judgement of 19 July 1978 (I CR 254/78). This enigmatic evidence (called a signature) indicates that this is simply a case dealt with by the civilian Chamber of the ultimate Court, or an appropriate chamber dealing with civilian affairs.
Civil affairs are a category of cases relating to various issues relating to relations between individuals or another legal entities. They may cover matters relating to contracts, claims, damages, as well as family, succession and many another aspects governed by civilian law.
In the judgement cited above, the ultimate Court repealed judgment of the Provincial Court in Warsaw of 13 April 1978. and ordered that the case be reconsidered in the context of the regularity of the procedure and possible errors made in the erstwhile proceedings.
The Provincial Court of Warsaw delivered its judgement on 13 April 1978, in which it dismissed Wiesław S. v Eugeniusz M. This judgement referred to a case concerning a breach of worship in which the plaintiff Wiesław S. demanded that the suspect Eugeniusz M. proceed to violate his worship and order him to place appropriate notices in the press in order to remedy the effects of erstwhile infringements, according to Article 24(1) of the civilian Code.
This Article civilian Code the date of the judgement was as follows: ‘The individual whose individual welfare is threatened by another people's actions may request that this action be neglected unless it is not unlawful. In the event of a breach, he may besides require that the individual who committed the infringement complete the steps essential to remedy its effects, in peculiar to make a message of the appropriate content and form.’
The provincial court established that the parties were connected by family-law ties, and the dispute afraid cases related to the division of household property and successions after the deceased wife of the defendant. The suspect challenged the management of the plaintiff's brother's assets, claiming that he mismanaged and utilized funds by buying 2 cars and a flat. Recalling the statements of his late wife, he stated that all the property and values recorded by the plaintiff's parent were to the plaintiff alone. In addition, he did not return any of the inheritance items to his brother and father, as well as not according to the will of the heirs took over gold and jewelry, intended for any extraordinary expenses for Tadeusz S., the plaintiff's brother. He besides claimed that he did not implement the will's provisions, and that his actions raised doubts as to the appropriate care of the incapacitated brother. The suspect besides claimed that the plaintiff posthumously slandered his wife. These arguments were intended to convince that it was not possible to issue to the plaintiff the subject of the evidence for the incapacitated brother included in the defendant's wife's will, in view of the evidence she made regarding the release to the rightful's own hands.
It is worth noting that, according to the findings of the Provincial Court, contrary to the defendant's allegations, the reason is simply a man with advanced moral values, a doctor with respect in the household and workplace. In addition, a individual who took care of his father without profiting materially from his activities. He besides carefully managed the funds of an incapacitated brother, avoiding abuse, and the car was purchased for its own money. In addition, he was the guardian of his aunt, the defendant's wife providing her comprehensive wellness and individual care, gaining her recognition.
The Provincial Court in Warsaw found that although the suspect could be accused of questioning the plaintiff's good opinion, his actions were not illegal. The suspect acted in defence of his individual rights, defending himself against the plaintiff's claims. Thus, the defendant’s pleas were within the limits of the admissible procedural defence, even if they were at the limit of admissibility. He did not find the defendant's actions illegal and so dismissed the action. This ruling was repealed by the ultimate Court, which referred the case to a re-examination by the Provincial Court in Warsaw. Its position is based on the fact that the organization cannot supply false data derogating from the another organization in judicial proceedings, knowing that they are false. If this certainty is not available, the organization should not supply false information, even if it has certain data which are detrimental to the another party. In addition, the Court of First Instance failed to take into account the fact that the suspect violated the dignity of the plaintiff besides outside the court cases, and besides did not explain the case of a one-time insult, the victim of which was the plaintiff. The deficiency of information in the files of cases in which disparaging remarks have been made would require these files to be attached to the case.
Source:
- Act of 8 December 2017 on the ultimate Court (Journal of Laws 2018 item 5)
- Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 (Journal of Laws No 78, item 483)
- Civil Procedure Code of 17 November 1964 (Journal of Laws No. 43, item 296)
- Law of 23 April 1964. civilian Code (Journal of Laws No 16, item 93)
- Judgment of the ultimate Court of 19 July 1978 (I CR 254/78)
