Abstract

This article presents forthcoming changes to appeal proceedings related to the introduction of remote sessions/hearings and the conditional time-barring of evidence. It ­attempts to evaluate these new solutions from the perspective of a member of the National Appeal Chamber (KIO) and to propose further potential improvements to the appeal process.
The author highlights the inconsistent terminology used in the act introducing these changes, as well as the lack of alignment between the adopted statutory solutions and the actual course of appeal proceedings. In particular, the issue of the direct exchange of pleadings is addressed, primarily between third-party intervenors, whose participation is notified only to the parties and the Chamber.
The article discusses the forms of submitting pleadings and the deadlines for submission, including the President of the Chamber’s power to set a deadline for the contracting authority to file a response to the appeal. It also examines the consequences of this regulation for the submission of pleadings by intervenors, in particular the feasibility of maintaining the 15-day directory time limit for ruling on an appeal.
The course of remote sessions/hearings is analysed, from the moment the President of the Chamber decides to order such proceedings until the conclusion of the hearing. Doubts are raised regarding the conduct of evidentiary proceedings in light of the legislator’s distinction between the terms “evidentiary claim” (teza dowodowa) and the “presentation of evidence”.
Finally, recommendations are presented to further improve appeal proceedings, primarily through the creation of an information portal for parties and participants to allow for the ongoing monitoring of case statuses.