I PK 18/08
Généré par l'IA
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for failure to specify social coexistence rules under Art. 8 k.p. in labor dispute.
Pologne (PL)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal against a labor court judgment regarding the reinstatement of an employee. The lower court relied on general principles of social coexistence without explicitly defining the specific rule violated. The Supreme Court ruled that while courts must attempt to formulate such a rule, they are not required to concretely name it, provided they identify the exceptional circumstances justifying its application.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArt. 8 k.p.; Art. 398 § 1 k.p.c.: Courts must attempt to formulate the specific social coexistence rule violated but are not obligated to concretely name it, provided they identify the exceptional circumstances justifying its application in the specific case.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IA
social coexistence principles
labor law reinstatement
cassation appeal dismissal
exceptional circumstances
judicial reasoning standard
Dispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IAArt. 8 k.p.
Art. 398 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 384 in conjunction with Art. 398 § 21 k.p.c.
Art. 108 § 2 k.p.c.
art. 8 k.p
art. 39 k.p
art. 53 k.p
art. 68 k.p
art. 45 § 3 k.p
art. 328 § 2 k.p.c
Jurisprudence citée
Généré par l'IAI PR 159/64
I PKN 14/96
Employer dismissed drunk worker; court upheld dismissal citing breach of duty and social norms.
I PKN 740/99
Family situation alone does not prove employer's dismissal violates social coexistence principles under Art. 8 KP.
I PKN 65/00
Supreme Court allows reinstatement claim for age discrimination, rejecting age as a valid social usage barrier. Dismisses employer's procedural objection regarding appointment status.
I PK 263/04
Supreme Court quashes labor court ruling on reinstatement, requiring fresh assessment of social norms and employer fault.
II CKN 928/97
Supreme Court allows contract termination due to breach of good faith and criminal threats by successor.
I ACa 509/06
I PK 104/06
Supreme Court partially quashes lower court ruling on reinstatement, remanding case due to salary calculation error.
I CK 756/04
kwoty 91.609,25 zł tytułem uzupełnienia wynagrodzenia za wykonane dla strony pozwanej roboty, 2) umownych odsetek w wysokości 0,2% dziennie od szczegółowo wymienionych kwot i określonych okresów, 3) umownych odsetek w wysokości 0,2% dziennie od kwoty 21.631,42 zł, stanowiącej skapitalizowane odsetki umowne wyliczone do dnia wytoczenia powództwa, od dnia wytoczenia powództwa do dnia zapłaty. Sąd I instancji zasądził od strony pozwanej na rzecz powodów: I. kwotę 22.415,64 zł z ustawowymi odsetkami od 30 października 1998 r. do dnia zapłaty wraz z kosztami procesu, II. oddalił powództwo w pozostałej części.
I UK 49/05
Supreme Court allows withdrawal from open pension fund declaration made under mistake of fact.