Abstract

In its resolution of 18 June 2019 adopted by the bench of seven judges (III CZP 101/18), the Supreme Court explained that a prosecutor of any general prosecutor’s office unit may act as a legal representative of the State Treasury (Art. 87 § 2 in conjunction with Art. 67 § 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure). In the statement of reasons, the Supreme Court found that there were no grounds to conclude that the impediments that prevent judges from being representatives of the State Treasury represented by a competent court also applied to prosecutors. Furthermore, if the possibility of the prosecutors’ acting as legal representatives for the State Treasury was to be negated, then the potential of the prosecutor’s office which groups lawyers who also have experience in specialties other than criminal law would remain untapped.