Suspending and revoking immediate enforceability of a default judgement following the 2019 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure
Abstract
The present paper analyses the provisions of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure regarding the suspension and revocation of immediate enforceability of a default judgement, with a focus on Article 346 of the Code. The goal of the study is to assess whether the current regulation complies with the changes resulting from the 2019 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether it provides procedural protection to a defendant who has failed to enter a defence through no fault of their own. The article uses the legal-dogmatic approach, which involves the analysis of applicable provisions and their interpretation in case law and doctrine. Additionally, the theoretical-legal approach is used to evaluate the purposefulness and effectiveness of the regulation. The author points out a legal loophole regarding the grounds for suspending immediate enforceability. Legislation does not directly protect a defendant who has failed to respond to a claim put to them for reasons that were no fault of their own. It is postulated that the grounds for revoking immediate enforceability should be extended to situations where a default judgement was issued as a result of improper service or the defendant’s failure to take action through no fault of their own. It is proposed, as an alternative solution, that the default judgement itself could be set aside at an early stage of the proceedings, which would eliminate the need to enforce it. The article emphasises that the current provisions may lead to a situation in which the defendant ‒ despite the absence of fault ‒ bears the consequences of enforcement, even if immediate enforceability is suspended. The author proposes legislative changes aimed at improving the protection of the defendant and adjusting the regulations so that they comply with the principle of a fair trial.
Keywords:
default judgement, immediate enforceability, defence in legal proceedings, suspending immediate enforceability, revoking immediate enforceabilityReferences
Basta J., Dopuszczalność apelacji powoda od wyroku zaocznego uwzględniającego powództwo – uwagi de lege lata, de lege ferenda, Acta Iuridica Resoviensia 2023, nr 4. (Crossref)
Bodio J., Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz aktualizowany, t. 1. Art. 1–729, red. A. Jakubecki, 2019 [wyd. el. LEX].
Cichorska M., Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, red. P. Rylski, A. Olaś, wyd. 3, Warszawa 2024.
Dziurda M., Czy nadchodzi zmierzch zasady ustności w postępowaniu cywilnym?, Polski Proces Cywilny 2022, nr 1.
Gałas A., w: Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, t. 1. Komentarz. Art. 1–45816, red. T. Szanciło, wyd. 2, Warszawa 2023.
Głodowski W., Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Koszty sądowe w sprawach cywilnych. Dochodzenie roszczeń w postępowaniu grupowym. Przepisy przejściowe. Komentarz do zmian, t. 1, red. T. Zembrzuski, Warszawa 2020.
Krakowiak M., Nowelizacja Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego mocą ustawy z 4.7.2019 r. (cz. II – Organizacja postępowania; Rozprawa), Monitor Prawniczy 2019, nr 20.
Kunicki I., Uchylenie rygoru natychmiastowej wykonalności i nadzór judykacyjny nad komornikiem sądowym, Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego 2019, nr 1 (suplement).
Marcewicz O., Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Koszty sądowe w sprawach cywilnych. Dochodzenie roszczeń w postępowaniu grupowym. Przepisy przejściowe. Komentarz do zmian, t. 1, red. T. Zembrzuski, Warszawa 2020.
Marciniak A., Sądowe postępowanie egzekucyjne, Warszawa 2013.
Marszałkowska-Krześ E., Postępowanie cywilne, Warszawa 2017.
May J., w: Nowelizacja Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego z 4.7.2019 r. w praktyce, red. K. Flaga-Gieruszyńska, R. Flejszar, M. Malczyk, Warszawa 2020.
Michalska-Marciniak M., w: Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, t. 2. Komentarz do art. 2051–42412, red. A. Marciniak, Warszawa 2019, uwagi do art. 346.
Sokólska K., Zmiany przepisów o natychmiastowej wykonalności wyroku zaocznego, Polski Proces Cywilny 2019, nr 1.
Stefańska E., Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz aktualizowany, t. 1. Art. 1–47716, red. M. Manowska, 2022 [wyd. el. LEX].
Weitz K., Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, t. 2. Postępowanie rozpoznawcze, red. T. Ereciński, wyd. 5, Warszawa 2016.
Weitz K., Wyrok zaoczny oddalający powództwo, Polski Proces Cywilny 2011, nr 3.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Author declares that the Work is original and does not infringe any personal or proprietary rights of third parties, and that She/He has unlimited rights to the Work which are the subject of the Agreement signed with the Publisher.
Author of the publication transfers to the Publisher the economic copyrights to the Work (article) submitted for publication, free of charge, without time and territorial restrictions in the following fields of use:
a) production, recording and reproduction of the copies of the Work by a specific technique, including printing, magnetic recording and digital technology;
b) marketing, lending or rental of the original or copies of the Work, and distribution in the form of open access, in accordance with the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (also known as CC BY), available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.pl;
c) inclusing the Work in the composition of the collective work;
d) publishing on the website of the journal, public performance, exhibition, display, reproduction, broadcasting and rebroadcasting, and making the Work available to the public in such a way that everyone can have access to them in a place and at a time chosen by them;
e) uploading the Work in an electronic form to electronic platforms or other uploading of the Work in an electronic form to the Internet or other network.
The proprietary copyright to the Work is transferred to the Publisher free of charge upon signing the contract wit the Publisher.
