Abstract

Bringing an action under the electronic writ-of-payment proceedings is one of the forms to obtain fast settlement of the claim. An electronic payment order may be appealed by filing an objection. Filing an objection within the prescribed time limit is synonymous with the wish to challenge the effectiveness of the writ by way of substantive verification of the claim, which in the electronic writ-of-payment proceedings, in the absence of evidentiary proceedings and basing the order of payment exclusively on plaintiff’s allegations contained in the lawsuit, was left to the defendant. Having in mind the nature of electronic proceedings, which constitute a preliminary request for payment, the institution of objection is of key importance for the defendant. However, filing an objection by the defendant invalidates the effects of this procedure and the case needs to be transferred to the ordinary litigation procedure, which involves discontinuance of the electronic proceedings. However, this discontinuance is different from discontinuance of civil proceedings under Art. 355 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The article analyses the consequences of the substantive effect of the original action brought in under the writ-of-payment proceedings such as interruption of the limitation period despite subsequent discontinuance due to failure to make up for formal defects.