Criticism of the current solution
The provisions so far imposed on courts the work to draw up justifications in form of forms, including in the case of judgments of courts of the first instance, injunctions, cumulative judgments, as well as appeals or resumption proceedings. However, judicial practice has shown that the rigid framework of the forms did not always let a faithful reflection of the judgement and argument process leading to the outcome.
The forms were of a hermetic nature, forcing evidence and arguments to be included in clearly defined sections, which, in multi-threaded cases, could restrict the implementation of Article 424(1) and (2) of the NCP. However, according to established case law, the justification of the judgement is not simply a formality, but an essential component of the right to a fair trial.
The Voice of Judaism
The justification for the task argued that the limitations resulting from the current solutions were indicated by the courts themselves. The Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, in its judgement of 17.6.2020, II AKa 64/20, Legalis, stressed that the justification of the judgment, documenting the reasoning of the court, serves not only as a procedural, but besides as a legitimizing judgement in the eyes of the parties and the public. According to the Court of First Instance, the imposition of a form in certain cases could infringe the defendant’s right to a fair trial, which in circumstantial cases justified the withdrawal from the application of the statutory design.
The Constitutional Court has held a akin position for years. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal underlines that the justification of the judgement is an essential instrument for the interior control and the effective usage of remedies. The justification must not be brought to a laconic, schematic record, but must let the organization to realize the reasons for the decision and to actually challenge it in the appeal.
Proposed amendment
The designer, recognizing the problems identified, proposes to abandon the work to make justifications on forms. The amendment of Article 99a(1) of the NCP will introduce an chance alternatively than the request for courts to usage this simplified form.
The forms will so stay an ‘ancillary tool’ of an office-technical nature, which can be utilized in simpler cases, while maintaining the primacy of the parties to a fair trial. In the case of complex cases, the court will be free to draw up a classical justification, without the hazard that the form strategy will limit the scope of the arguments.
The amendment besides provides for the removal from the regulation of exemplification (including the order and the full judgment), in order to prevent interpretative doubts and to emphasise the optional nature of the usage of forms.
Meaning for practice
The proposed change is of vital applicable importance:
- for courts – abolishes the work to usage a tool which did not always correspond to the specifics of the case,
- for parties to proceedings – enhances the guarantees of a fair process, allowing for a more comprehensive knowing of the grounds for resolution and more effective usage of remedies,
- for the justice system – strengthens transparency and social legitimacy of judgments, restoring greater flexibility to courts in formulating justifications.
Legislative phase
The task was aimed at the first reading.
