Abstract

In the commented judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court clearly stated that an administrative authority was obliged to serve procedural documents only to one of several attorneys-in-fact properly appointed by a party. Service made to other representatives will not have legal effects and will only have informative value. The Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged that a public administration authority has an obligation to direct correspondence to one attorney only, and this obligation does not depend on any previous instruction provided to the party as to the possibility of indicating a representative for service. The gloss briefly presents the findings of the courts of both instances in this case, the principle of the formality of service as well as a detailed discussion the judgment passed by the cassation court. The view underlying the judgment has been appreciated by the authors of this article.