Changes in civil procedure

Recently, the President signed the Act of 11 August 2021 amending the Act – Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts. What does the subsequent amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for this time?

1. Article 165 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was modified, which indicates that the submission of a pleading in the form of registered mail in a Polish postal facility of a postal operator within the meaning of the Act of 23 November 2012. – Postal Law or in an establishment of an entity engaged in the delivery of correspondence on the territory of the European Union is equivalent to bringing it to court.
2. Thus, currently, in order to comply with the deadline for filing a pleading an additional obligation must be fulfilled in the form of sending the letter by registered mail (previously an ordinary letter was sufficient). But it is enough to send the letter at any Polish postal operator (provided that it performs its activity on the basis of the Act of 23 November 2012. – Postal Law). However, such a requirement does not apply to posting of procedural writs in other European Union countries – obviously, entities operating there do not provide services under the Polish postal law. Thus, it will be sufficient to post a letter at an establishment of an entity engaged in the service of correspondence in the European Union – the choice of establishments will therefore be very wide.
3. There have also been introduced changes in the proceedings by way of payment-order and writ-of-payment in such a way that Article 480² has been given a new wording. The new wording of the provision allows the court to indicate in the order for payment a time limit other than 2 weeks and § 2 indicates in what cases the court should indicate in the order what the time limit should be. The time limit is:
   1) two weeks of the day of service of the order in the case of an order for payment issued under the writ of payment procedure if the order is to be served on the defendant in the country;
   2) one month as from the date of service of the order in the case of an order for payment issued under a writ of payment procedure if the defendant is to be served with the order outside the country in the territory of the European Union;
   3) one month from the date of service of the order in case of an order for payment issued under the order of payment procedure where the service of the order on the defendant is to take place in the territory of the European Union;
   4) three months from the date of service of the order, where service of the order is to take place outside the territory of the European Union.
4. In addition, two new paragraphs 21 and 22 have been added in the wording, which allow for a change in the time limit for the performance indicated in the order for payment if, after the order for payment has been issued, it transpires that service of the order for payment is to take place in a place other than that originally indicated in the lawsuit.
5. In the proceedings by writ of payment, article 485 has been amended, with a new wording of § 2, adding additional requirements for the issuance of an order for payment against a consumer in the form of presenting, together with the statement of claim, the agreement from which the claim secured by a bill of exchange arises, together with the bill of exchange declaration and appendices.  Additionally, in the content of the lawsuit against a natural person, it is necessary to include a statement whether the claim asserted in the slawsuit has arisen in connection with the agreement concluded with the consumer. As a consequence of this change, the new wording of § 4 indicates that if the original bill of exchange or cheque is not attached or the statement (new element) referred to in the fourth sentence of § 2 is not included in the body of the lawsuit, the presiding officer shall request the claimant to submit it under pain of the return of the lawsuit under article 130 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Another consequence of the addition of this declaration is the addition of § 5 which provides for the possibility to impose a fine on the claimant, his legal representative or his agent who, in bad faith or through lack of due diligence, has made a false statement that the claim asserted in the lawsuit did not arise from a contract concluded with a consumer.
6. The above changes are a consequence of, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, C-176/17 – Profi Credit Polska (OJ EU.C.408).
7. The Act also amends the law on bills of exchange and the Act on court costs in civil cases.