The omission by the court of the second instance of new facts and evidence brought by an incidental intervener joining the case during the appeal proceedings

Jarosław Adam Szczechowicz

Uniwersytet Warmińsko - Mazurski


Abstract

The procedural situation of an incidental intervener is determined by the
state of the case at the time of notification of the intervention. In particular,
the intervener’s accession does not nullify the proceedings conducted so far
and the activities performed therein, the intervener may also not require the
repetition of these activities, even if he considers them to be defective, but is
obliged to accept the proceedings in the form in which they are at the time of
accession. to the page. The status of the case as it is defined in Art. 79, the
first sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood broadly, and
the interpretation of this concept should be carried out taking into account the
fact that an incidental intervener to which Art. 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not seek the protection of its subjective rights, but is a third party
whose role is limited to supporting the party in seeking to obtain a judgment
favourable to it. The assessment of whether a procedural act is admissible in
the specific state of the case cannot, therefore, disregard the procedural situation of the party to which the intervener joined. The point is therefore not
only that the procedural step is objectively admissible at a particular stage of
the proceedings, but also that it is admissible for the party whom the intervener joined, taking into account the course of the proceedings to date. Thus, an
incidental intervener may only use such powers that remain at the disposal
of the party at the time the intervener acts. Therefore, if a side has lost the
right to act as a result of the expiry of the time limit or due to the end of the
stage of the proceedings, such right is also lost by an incidental intervener.
The fact that the incidental intervener joined the side only at the stage of the
appeal proceedings, and thus could not have previously invoked a fact or evidence, does not, therefore, exclude the omission of this fact or evidence pursuant to Art. 381 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if this material would be late
and would have to be omitted if it was appointed by the party itself


Keywords:

incidental intervener, evidence exclusion, appeal, cassation appeal


Literatura:   Google Scholar

Radkiewicz T., [w:] Postępowanie w sprawach gospodarczych. Komentarz do wybranych przepisów Kodeksu postepowania cywilnego, red. Kinga Flaga-Gieruszyńska, Warszawa 2021, s. 160.   Google Scholar

Zieliński A., [w:] Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, red. A. Zieliński, Warszawa 2012, s. 171.   Google Scholar

Orzecznictwo:   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 24 lipca 1981 r., IV CR 252/81, OSNCP 1982, nr 2-3, poz. 34,   Google Scholar

uchwała SN z 28 kwietnia 1982 r., III CZP 12/82, OSNCP 1982, nr 11-12, poz. 165,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 6 kwietnia 2006 r., IV CSK 182/05 MoP 2006 nr 9, str. 457,   Google Scholar

uchwała SN z 19 kwietnia 2007 r., III CZP 162/06 OSNC 2008, Nr 5, poz. 47,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 9 maja 2007 r., II CSK 77/07 MoP 2007 nr 11, str. 587,   Google Scholar

uchwała SN z 31 stycznia 2008 r., III CZP 49/07, OSNC 2008, nr 6, poz. 55,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 4 marca 2008 r., IV CSK 481/07, Legalis nr 491937,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 3 lutego 2010 r., II CSK 455/09, OSNC 2010, nr 6, poz. 95,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 11 stycznia 2013 r., I CSK 275/12, Legalis nr 615856,   Google Scholar

postanowienie SN z 16 listopada 2017 r., V CSK 65/17, Legalis nr 1733720,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 8 lutego 2018 r., II CSK 462/17, OSNC-ZD 2018, nr C, poz. 48,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 20 września 2018 r., IV CSK 557/17, OSNC 2019, nr 7-8, poz. 82,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 14 grudnia 2018 r., I CSK 689/17, Legalis nr 1875435,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 14 lutego 2019 r., IV CSK 100/18, OSNC - Zb. dodatkowy 2020 nr B, poz. 26, str. 31,   Google Scholar

postanowienie Sądu Najwyższego z 6 marca 2019 r., I CSK 456/18, Legalis nr 1882638,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 9 sierpnia 2019 r., II CSK 551/18, Legalis nr 2488089,   Google Scholar

wyrok SN z 23 października 2020 r., I CSK 684/18, OSNC 2021/5/37.   Google Scholar

Akty prawne:   Google Scholar

Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 2 kwietnia 1997 r., Dz.U. Nr 78, poz. 483 ze zm.,   Google Scholar

ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny, t. j. Dz.U. z 2020 r. poz. 1740 ze zm.,   Google Scholar

Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności z dnia 4 listopada 1950 Dz.U. z 1993 r. Nr 61, poz. 284 z zm.,   Google Scholar

ustawa z dnia 17 czerwca 2004 r. o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokura-tora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki, t.j. Dz.U. z 2018 r. poz. 75 ze zm.   Google Scholar

Download


Published
2021-09-29

Cited by

Szczechowicz, J. A. (2021). The omission by the court of the second instance of new facts and evidence brought by an incidental intervener joining the case during the appeal proceedings. Studia Prawnoustrojowe, (53). https://doi.org/10.31648/sp.6831

Jarosław Adam Szczechowicz 
Uniwersytet Warmińsko - Mazurski