Abstract

Pursuant to art. 130^1a of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a pleading filed by an advocate, legal counsellor, patent agent or the State Treasury Solicitor’s Office cannot be correctly processed owing to non-observance of formal requirements, the presiding judge shall return the pleading without a call for its correction or complement. This regulation arouses serious interpretational problems, and at the same time it is doubtful whether it contributed to any major acceleration of proceedings.
Doubts continue to be aroused also by interpretation of Art. 130² of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulates that a pleading filed by professional attorney, which has not been duly paid for, shall be returned by the presiding judge without a call for payment, if the pleading is subject to a fixed or proportional fee calculated on the value of the object of litigation indicated therein.
To a certain extent, they were clarified by the Supreme Court resolution of 12 May 2023 (III CZP 139/22) stating that it is admissible to file a complaint against the decision to return the pleading despite the fact that the fee has been paid within one week from the date on which the decision to return it has been served, which means that the pleading shall have effect as from the date of its original submission in accordance with Art. 130² § 2 of the Code.