Legislator Case Law & Legislation
III SZ 2/06 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal by unauthorized lawyer because client confirmed it, not dismissing due to procedural defects.

Case Number III SZ 2/06
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal, overturning the lower court's dismissal based on procedural defects. The lower court rejected the appeal because the lawyer failed to specify the scope of the request and improperly authenticated a court register copy, arguing lawyers can only authenticate their own power of attorney. The Supreme Court ruled that while the lawyer lacked authority to authenticate the register copy, the appeal was valid because the client confirmed it, making the sanction merely a bar to participation rather than dismissal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 89 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 68 k.p.c. in conjunction with Art. 67 § 1 k.p.c.: A lawyer's lack of authority to authenticate specific documents does not justify dismissing an appeal if the represented party confirms the appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
power of attorney authentication lawyer unauthorized representative appeal procedural defects client confirmation sanction court register copy civil procedure code representation authority

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 89 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 68 k.p.c.
Art. 67 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 368 § 1 pkt 5 k.p.c.
Art. 398 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 394 § 3 k.p.c.
art. 89 § 1 k.p.c
art. 67 § 1 k.p.c
art. 368 § 1 pkt 5 k.p.c
art. 68 k.p.c

Cited Case Law

AI generated

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text