Abstract

The main aim of this paper is to answer the question whether hearing of a case excluding simplified procedure provisions according to Art. 505¹ § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure can actually result in a more efficient resolution of a dispute. The analysis leads to the conclusion that it is possible in cases concerning e.g. modification of a claim, joint examination of the main claim and the counterclaim, subjective transformations or examination of a set-off. In such situations, the provisions on ordinary proceedings or separate proceedings in commercial, labour or social insurance cases are applicable. Then, either all or some of the above mentioned legal institutions will be permitted. At the same time, it is worth noting that the provision of Art. 505¹ § 3 of the CCP is inconsistent with the axiological assumptions underlying introduction of a simplified procedure to the CCP and the goals set out by the legislator in the Act of 4 July 2019 amending the Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts, which may even question the sense of separating this procedure in general.