Critical commentary on the Supreme Court's decision of 29 March 2023 (case file no. III CZ 427/22) stating that filing a document with the court via the internet (e-PUAP) does not produce any legal effects. Through extreme formalism, in an era of ubiquitous digitalisation, citizens are being denied the right to have their cases heard on their merits.
💡 Key takeaways from the Supreme Court ruling
- In the Polish civil procedure, the service of a procedural document via the e-PUAP platform (instead of traditional mail or a court registry office) has been recognised by the Supreme Court as legally valid. futile.
- Instead of treating this as a formal deficiency (lack of a handwritten signature), which can be rectified within 7 days, the Supreme Court has completely invalidated such documents, automatically rejecting the appeals.
- This approach infringes upon a citizen's constitutional right of access to court, particularly in light of restricted post office opening hours.
The Supreme Court ruled that a submission via E-PUAP has no legal effect. No one considers the problem this ruling leaves the citizen with. What matters is that the court found a procedural reason not to resolve the case.
Filing of a document via ePUAP invalid? Commentary on the Supreme Court's decision
Dlaczego problem ze złożeniem dokumentów narasta?
The subject is well-known to practitioners. In the career of every legal representative, as well as an ordinary citizen, the need to submit a document on the last day of a deadline has arisen many times (e.g., due to sudden illness or a short time for analysis). During this time, Poczta Polska S.A., instead of raising the standard of services, is closing 24-hour branches (even in such large cities as Krakow). A citizen, who by law has until 11:59 PM on the last day of the deadline to post a document, de facto This is unfair because the last post closes at, say, 9 PM. It's no wonder, then, that desperate citizens and lawyers began seeking refuge in the state e-PUAP system.
However, in 2023, the Supreme Court in a civilised country in the heart of Europe decided that this was absolutely unacceptable.
What should be the motivation of the adjudicating panel?
Judges swear to "faithfully serve the Republic of Poland, to uphold the law". In accordance with the Constitution – the Republic is the common good of all citizens, a state established so that we may live better. Therefore, the key question that Supreme Court judges should ask themselves when taking on a case is: how to rule in this legal gap in a way that protects the rights of the citizen?
Potential consequences of a pro-citizen ruling (by analogy)
If the Supreme Court were to deem, in its benevolence, that since almost all documents can be successfully submitted to public administration offices via e-PUAP for years, then the principle of a democratic state governed by the rule of law (as well as the right to a court) necessitates the acceptance of such correspondence by courts as well. The application of interpretation by analogy would fill the gap left by a sluggish legislator.
What's more, such an innovative ruling would finally force the Ministry of Justice to accelerate the computerisation of civil courts (which today can serve documents via an information portal, but cannot formally accept them in return within the ordinary process).
Potential effects of a compromise ruling
Even without agreement on full digitalisation, the Supreme Court judges could have maintained the compromise that has been in place for years. According to this, a document sent via e-PUAP is filed on time, but it is treated as a document with a formal defect in the form of lack of personal signatureThe court should then call for the remedying of this defect within 7 days. This was an excellent "emergency exit" that saved citizens' constitutional guarantees, and was not abused on a large scale.
Procedural guarantees and deprivation of rights
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled something completely to the contrary: the document produces no effects whatsoever. An electronically filed appeal or complaint lands in the bin, and the citizen irrevocably loses the right to a two-instance review of their case. And it makes no difference whether they made a mistake themselves, or if their representative made a mistake.
The disease of formalism afflicting Polish courts
This ruling is an exceptionally glaring example of the disease of extreme formalism, reducing the court process to a mindless formality. From daily practice, it is clear that many judges are just waiting for a technical error by a citizen (e.g., incorrect payment, wrong margin, delivery error) in order to instantly dismiss the case for purely procedural reasons. The statistics add up, the case is closed, and the judge has less work. And substantive justice takes a back seat.
The denial of citizens' right to a substantive examination of their case simply because a document arrived via cable rather than in a paper envelope through the Polish Post is a cause for shame. Justice was meant to serve citizens, not to isolate itself from them with a wall of anachronistic regulations.