Abstract

Upon the transfer of business records onto the nationwide level and opening of easy access to public data of the Central Business Activity Registration and Information System (CEIDG), the issue of how deliveries are to be made to individual entrepreneurs has again become topical. This concerns in particular the possibility of delivering court documents to the address for deliveries or the address of the main place of business disclosed in the CEIDG. The need to re-analyse the situation in this respect is all the more clear considering the slight impact of the past statements made by academics and attorneys on the jurisdiction of common courts. There are several systemic and functional arguments in favour of making deliveries to the address for deliveries disclosed in the CEID. They have become all the more powerful since individual entrepreneur’s address of residence ceased to be public information disclosed in business records. The judicial practice of requesting the plaintiff to indicate defendant’s address of residence may in fact restrict the right to a fair trial. Recognizing the address for deliveries disclosed in the CEIDG as valid for the needs of litigations is also justified from the viewpoint of a distinction between personal and business affairs of the defendant entrepreneur. However, until the position of common courts becomes more flexible or legislative amendments are passed, certain ad hoc measures may be introduced in order to lessen the risks relating to not knowing individual entrepreneur’s address of residence.