Abstract

Pursuant to Art. 44(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the State Treasury is a party to the proceedings and the state-owned organisational entity whose activities are related to the claim is the court hearing the case or the court superior thereto, the case shall be moved to another equivalent court ex officio. The regulation has been introduced in order to embody the rule that a court should not review cases the nature of which challenge its judicial impartiality a limine. It has been emphasised in the rationale of the bill that if a court considers a case to which the court itself is a party it „undermines the local community’s perception of the court as an impartial judicial authority” .In the Supreme Court Resolution of 27 April 2022, III CZP 56/22, the Supreme Court followed the existing ruling practice, whereby Art 44(2)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable to cases that had been initiated and pending prior to its effective date, that is 7 November 2019. It was added, however, that, while considering an appeal, the court of second instance would not be bound by the decision to deny change of venue issued pursuant to Art. 44(2)(1) of the Code by the superior court as a result of the submission of the court of first instance.