Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
II PZP 8/09 AI generated

Supreme Court refused to answer legal questions regarding board member employment protection and damages calculation.

Case Number II PZP 8/09
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court declined to issue a binding ruling on whether a board member employed under a labor contract enjoys protection against termination without notice and how damages should be calculated. The lower court presented specific legal questions regarding the applicability of Article 39 of the Labor Code and the scope of compensation under Article 58, but the Supreme Court determined these questions were not formulated correctly. The court ruled that it cannot alter the essence of the questions presented to it, as doing so would violate judicial independence, and thus refused to answer.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 39 k.p.; Art. 58 k.p.; Art. 390 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 390 § 2 k.p.c.; Art. 61 § 1 ust. SN: The Supreme Court may only decide on legal questions presented that clearly relate to the interpretation of laws applicable to the established facts, and it cannot reformulate questions to provide a useful answer without violating the independence of the judiciary.

Keywords

AI generated
labor contract termination board member protection judicial independence legal question formulation Supreme Court procedure damages calculation labor code interpretation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 39 k.p.
Art. 58 k.p.
Art. 390 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 390 § 2 k.p.c.
Art. 61 § 1 ustawy z dnia 23 listopada 2002 roku o Sądzie Najwyższym
art. 39 k.p
art. 390 § 1 k.p.c
art. 52 § 1 pkt 1 k.p
art. 52 k.p
art. 203 § 1 k.s.h

Cited Case Law

AI generated
IV CSK 385/08
Supreme Court quashes appeal ruling for failure to apply rebus sic stantibus under Civil Code Art. 3571 and Civil Procedure Code Art. 321.1.
III PK 53/06
Supreme Court dismisses manager's claim to reinstatement, awarding only statutory severance instead.
III CZP 62/98
III CZP 11/09
Supreme Court dismisses legal question as unnecessary since plaintiff does not request judicial valuation under the Civil Code.
III CZP 113/08
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on property management decisions in security proceedings under old Civil Procedure Code rules.
III CZP 119/08
Supreme Court dismisses legal question submission as it concerns fact application, not abstract statutory interpretation.
III CZP 67/08
Supreme Court dismisses legal question due to inconsistent lower court findings on expropriation status.

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