Abstract

Literally understood, the thesis of the commented resolution of the Supreme Court of 22 May 2013 (III CZP 17/13) deserves sharp criticism, which may not be alleviated by the arguments presented by the Supreme Court in the statement of the grounds. Without doubt, the legal act of real property disposal may be performed directly by the entitled person (owner) or their representative (proxy). There is no civil law provision that would require the proxy to have any special subjective qualifications, especially such as in the course of court proceedings are required (acc. to Art. 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure) of an attorney. This legal rule is not changed by the specific norm laid down in Article 92 § 4 of the Law on Notaries, which requires the request for disclosure of the acquired right in the land and mortgage register to be included in the contents of a notarial deed. Such a request shall be submitted by a party (acquirer of the right) personally or by proxy. The competent court is obliged to consider the submitted request even if the proxy does not meet the requirements laid down in Art. 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure.