Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled Wednesday that individuals must have the right to appeal a court official’s dismissal of a complaint regarding property seized by a bailiff.
Constitutional Tribunal Ruling on Bailiff Enforcement and Right to Appeal
The Constitutional Tribunal addressed the issue of bailiff enforcement and the right to appeal. The ruling concerns the right to a court hearing.
The Tribunal determined that the inability to appeal a court registrar’s decision dismissing a complaint about property seized by a bailiff is unconstitutional. According to the Tribunal, “parties should have access to a court even at the stage of enforcement proceedings.”
The Necessity of Judicial Oversight
Judge Andrzej Zielonacki, in explaining the ruling, stated that “the essence of judicial enforcement lies in the application of coercion by a state authority, and the very fact of coercion by a state authority necessitates judicial control of that measure.”
Case Origin and Initial Complaint
The case before the Tribunal was initiated by a representative of an individual who filed a complaint against a bailiff’s action of seizing property. The complainant argued they had purchased the property when the land registry contained no record of ongoing enforcement proceedings.
The complaint was dismissed by a court registrar, and no appeal was permitted. This led to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code being challenged before the Constitutional Tribunal.
Argument for Right to a Court Hearing
The challenge argued that “the case was decided and resolved by a court official, and the complainant has no possibility of exercising their subjective right to a court, even through judicial review of the court registrar’s decision.”
The court registrar, while undertaking activities within the scope of legal protection, does not administer justice but is a special court official.
Ruling on the Unconstitutionality of Civil Procedure Code Provisions
Judge Zielonacki acknowledged that the case did not question the lack of possibility to appeal a court’s decision regarding a complaint about the seizure of movable property. The constitutional complaint focused on assessing the constitutionality of the legal regulation allowing a court registrar—an authority not a court—to supervise enforcement authorities without the possibility of judicial review.
Impact on Rights and Obligations of Parties
The judge indicated that decisions of court registrars regarding complaints against bailiffs directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties to enforcement proceedings, namely creditors and debtors. An example is a decision regarding the seizure of the complainant’s property.
Need for Judicial Control of Decisions
Regardless of whether the registrar would overturn the bailiff’s action or dismiss the complaint, the judge continued, the party should have the opportunity to submit that decision for judicial review.
Lack of Judicial Oversight in the Case
In the case that prompted the challenge to the Civil Procedure Code before the Constitutional Tribunal, “two non-judicial bodies, the bailiff and the court registrar, took certain actions, but none of them were subject to judicial supervision.”
Issuing rulings that conclude cases by bodies that are not courts is contrary to constitutional principles.
Tribunal’s Decision on Unconstitutionality
Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are unconstitutional to the extent that “they do not provide for the possibility of filing a complaint against a decision of a court registrar issued in a case concerning a complaint against a bailiff’s action involving the seizure of real estate.”
Composition of the Tribunal
The Tribunal issued the ruling in a five-judge composition chaired by the President of the Tribunal, Bogdan Święczkowski. The composition also included Stanisław Piotrowicz, Justyn Piskorski, and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański, in addition to Judge Zielonacki.
Sejm Resolution and Publication of Rulings
In a resolution adopted in March 2024, the Sejm emphasized that “considering the decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal issued in violation of the law in the activities of a public authority may be considered a violation of the principle of legality by those authorities.”
The Sejm also stated that two currently serving judges of the Tribunal—Jarosław Wyrembak and Justyn Piskorski—are not judges of the Tribunal. Since the adoption of that resolution by the Sejm, rulings of the Tribunal have not been published in the Journal of Laws. (PAP)