Abstract

The commented decision was issued as a response to a legal inquiry presented to the Supreme Court for resolution pursuant to Art. 390 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (III CZP 39/19). The question was whether the party to the inheritance ascertainment proceedings who was not informed about the date of the hearing and thus was unable to act is entitled to request the proceedings to be reopened (Art. 524 § 1 CCP in conjunction with Art. 401.2 CCP) or file a petition referred to in Art. 679 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a matter of fact, however, the problem was of a broader nature. In that case – as the court of first instance found and the court of appeal did not exclude – a copy of the petition was not delivered to the person who was mentioned therein as a party. Therefor it was necessary to clarify whether that person was a party or maybe only an interested person within the meaning of Art. 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in how the answer to that question determines the remedies that person may use for defending their rights.