Article

Pursuant to the provisions on proceedings concerning money claims online (EPU), where there are no grounds for issuing an order to pay or for reversal of an order to pay and referring the case to the court of general jurisdiction over the debtor, the chairperson requests the plaintiff to prove their authorisation and to enclose a power of attorney or additionally to pay a supplementary fee for the statement of claim – within two weeks following the service of such a request, under pain of termination of the proceedings. Failure to remove the indicated defects results in the termination of the proceedings by the court.

It raised doubts among practicing lawyers as to the effectiveness of the interruption of the limitation period, which might be of particular importance in situations where proceedings were discontinued for failure to remove formal defects and subsequently the plaintiff filed another claim in the same case and for the same payment. On 21 November 2013 the Supreme Court adopted a Resolution (file ref.: III CZP 66/13) removing such doubts, invoking the provision of Article 123 of the Civil Code under which the limitation period is interrupted by any action before a court or another authority appointed to hear cases of a given type, taken directly to assert a claim. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, there are no grounds for recognising that filing a money claim online should be an exception to the above-mentioned rule.