The Politics of Limitation of Claims in Poland: Post-Communist Ideology, Neoliberalism and the Plight of Uninformed Debtors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.89.09Keywords:
claims, limitation period, taking the expiry of the limitation period into account, polish civil law, political and legal changesAbstract
The text will present arguments raised by the supporters of two different positions regarding the manner of taking into account the expiry of the limitation period, namely those that are supposed to speak in favor of taking this circumstance by the courts ex officio, and those which prevail to take it into account only in the event of raising the plea of limitation by the one against whom the claim is due. Against this background, a polemical analysis will be made with these arguments, including inquiries about interests of which entities or social groups are implemented and protected for each of these solutions. It will be shown that some of the arguments put forward actually emphasize that the institution of limitation is to serve not so much as a party involved in a given claim (creditors or debtors), but rather institutions of the judiciary. It will also be shown that the solution currently in force in Polish civil law, within which the taking into account of the fact that a given claim is time-barred is possible only if the one against whom the claim is entitled raises the relevant claim of limitation, in fact prefers only the more affluent and better educated social strata, deepening the social exclusion of those who, due to, for example, worse property status, do not have the necessary knowledge, nor can afford to take advantage of legal aid. The latter, in effect, often do not plead the expiration of limitation period, because they do not know that they are entitled to it (in general, or are unable to assess when the claim became due, at which point the limitation period began or has ended). Polish civil law is a good example here for considering, firstly, that in the 20th century the regulations concerning the limitation of claims were changed several times, and each time a discussion on how to consider the expiry of the limitation period came to life (which provides rich argumentation with which one can confront) and also because historical and political entanglements play a significant role here. Namely, the text will show that the main resistance against taking into account the expiration of limitation period ex officio (which is a solution that protects the poorer people who can not afford legal assistance) is due to the fact that this solution, which was in force in the original version of the current Polish Civil Code, was modeled on the solutions of Soviet law. This means that after the political change in Poland in 1989, it was automatically attempted to eliminate it, and replace it with a solution used in European countries, where only if the one against whom the claim is entitled raises the relevant claim of limitation, even without any reflection on the substantive legitimacy of such a change and without analyzing the practical social effects of a solution, within which the expiry of the limitation period only is taking into account on when relevant plea is raised, not ex officio. Immersion of considerations in the realities of Polish law will also allow to show interests that have recently clashed on the occasion of the regulation of electronic writ-of-payment proceedings. In this example, it will be shown that despite the legislator making certain facade measures to protect the interests of people with less legal awareness and poorer, who can not afford to get help from a lawyer, in fact, many gates have been left, which question the reality of striving for such protection, because they allow to sue for the claim after the expiration of the limitation period in this proceeding. In this context, the latest change in Polish civil law in this area was also discussed, that is, the Act of April 13, 2018. On the basis of this Act, there has been a return to taking into account the expiration of the limitation period ex officio, but only if the entrepreneur sue the consumer. In the remaining scope, a solution was left within which the expiry of the limitation period is taking into account only when relevant plea is raised.
Downloads
References
Broniewicz, Witold. 1965. “Przedawnienie roszczeń w stosunkach między jednostkami gospodarki uspołecznionej według kodeksu cywilnego”. Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego 3: 61–65.
Google Scholar
Brzozowski, Adam. 1992. “Nowa regulacja przedawnienia w prawie cywilnym”. Państwo i Prawo 3: 21–31.
Google Scholar
Brzozowski, Adam. 2008. „Tytuł VI. Przedawnienie roszczeń”. In Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz do artykułów 1–44911. Vol. I. 522–537. Edited by Krzysztof Pietrzykowski. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
Cagara, Jan. 1961. “Na temat przedawnienia i prekluzji słów kilka”. Nowe Prawo 6: 767–770.
Google Scholar
Charkiewicz, Ewa. 2007. “Od komunizmu do neoliberalizmu. Technologie transformacji”. In Zniewolony umysł 2. Neoliberalizm i jego krytyki. 23–84. Edited by Ewa Majewska, Janek Sowa. Kraków: Korporacja Ha!art.
Google Scholar
Dobrzański, Bronisław. 1955. “Problemy kodyfikacyjne przedawnienia. Uwagi na marginesie artykułu J. Gwiazdomorskiego pt. ‘Podstawowe problemy przedawnienia’”. Nowe Prawo 2: 50–58.
Google Scholar
Dobrzański, Bronisław. 1960. “Czy uzasadnione jest zachowanie w kodeksie cywilnym PRL różnicy między przedawnieniem a terminem zawitym?” Nowe Prawo 6: 813– 819.
Google Scholar
Domański, Ludwik. 1936. Instytucje kodeksu zobowiązań. Komentarz teoretyczno-praktyczny. Część ogólna. Warszawa: Marian Ginter – Księgarnia Wydawnictw Prawniczych.
Google Scholar
Dunn, Elisabeth. 2008. Prywatyzując Polskę. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej.
Google Scholar
Flaga-Gieruszyńska, Kinga. 2014. “Objaśnienia do art. 4841–50537”. In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. 909–992. Edited by Andrzej Zieliński. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
Franczak, Katarzyna. 2011. “Elektroniczne postępowanie upominawcze – zalety i wady dla stron postępowania”. Przegląd Prawa Handlowego 7: 48–54.
Google Scholar
Gwiazdomorski, Jan. 1955. “Podstawowe problemy przedawnienia”. Nowe Prawo 1: 4–24.
Google Scholar
Gwiazdomorski, Jan. 1955. “Przedawnienie czy zarzut przedawnienia?”. Nowe Prawo 4: 44–52.
Google Scholar
Gwiazdomorski, Jan. 1968. “Terminy zawite do dochodzenia roszczeń w kodeksie cywilnym”. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 3: 87–110.
Google Scholar
Infor. 2017. http://www.infor.pl/prawo/w-sadzie/e-sad/320461,Nowelizacja-kodeksu-postepowania-cywilnego-zmiany-w-EPU.html [Accessed: 11 January 2017]
Google Scholar
Jedliński, Adam. 2012. “Tytuł VI. Przedawnienie roszczeń”. In Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Część ogólna. Vol. I. 728–769. Edited by Andrzej Kidyba. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Google Scholar
Jędrzejewska, Maria. 2006. In Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Vol. I. Edited by Tadeusz Ereciński. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Google Scholar
Kordasiewicz, Bogudar. 2008. „Rozdział XI. Problematyka dawności”. In System Prawa Prywatnego. Prawo cywilne – część ogólna. 563–698. Edited by Zbigniew Radwański. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
Kuźmicka-Sulikowska, Joanna. 2015. Idea przedawnienia i jej realizacja w polskim kodeksie cywilnym. Wrocław: E-Wydawnictwo. Prawnicza i Ekonomiczna Biblioteka Cyfrowa.
Google Scholar
Mańko, Rafał. 2015. “Relikty w kulturze prawnej. Uwagi metodologiczne na tle pozostałości epoki socjalizmu realnego w polskim prawie prywatnym”. Przegląd Prawa i Administracji 102: 185–208.
Google Scholar
Mańko, Rafał. 2016. “Demons of the Past? Legal Survivals of the Socialist Legal Tradition in Contemporary Polish Private Law”. In Law and Critique in Central Europe. Questioning the Past, Resisting the Present. 66–89. Edited by Rafał Mańko, Cosmin Cercel, Adam Sulikowski. Oxford: Counterpress.
Google Scholar
Mattei, Ugo. 1994. “Efficiency in Legal Transplants: An Essay in Comparative Law and Economics”. International Review of Law and Economics 14: 3–19.
Google Scholar
Miller, Jonathan. 2003. “A Typology of Legal Transplants: Using Sociology, Legal History and Argentine Examples to Explain the Transplant Process”. The American Journal of Comparative Law 51: 845–868.
Google Scholar
Pałdyna, Tomasz. 2012. Przedawnienie w polskim prawie cywilnym. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Google Scholar
Potejko, Patrycja. 2010. “Elektroniczne postępowanie upominawcze – fikcja wymiaru sprawiedliwości?”. Monitor Prawniczy 1: 16–23.
Google Scholar
Szer, Seweryn. 1950. Prawo cywilne – część ogólna. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Google Scholar
Szpak, Jagoda. 2011. “Kontrowersje wokół zagadnienia ‘legal transplants’”. Acta Erasmiana 1: 53–71.
Google Scholar
Szpunar, Adam. 1974. “Z problematyki przedawnienia roszczeń majątkowych”. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 3: 283–298.
Google Scholar
Szpunar, Adam. 1980. “Zrzeczenie się korzystania z przedawnienia”. Palestra 4–5: 15–23.
Google Scholar
Szpunar, Adam. 2002. “Uwagi o zrzeczeniu się zarzutu przedawnienia”. Rejent 10: 13–27.
Google Scholar
Tchórzewski, Mariusz. Przemysław Telenga. 2010. Elektroniczne postępowanie upominawcze. Komentarz. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Google Scholar
Vis Legis. 2017. http://vislegis.biz/dochodzenie-roszczen-przedawnionych-w-epu/ [Accessed: 11 January 2017]
Google Scholar
Wasilkowski, Jan. Ed. 1954. Projekt Kodeksu cywilnego Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze.
Google Scholar
Watson, Alan. 1991. Legal Origins and Legal Change. London: The Hambledon Press.
Google Scholar
Watson, Alan. 1993. Legal Transplants. An Approach to Comparative Law. Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
Google Scholar
Watson, Alan. 1996. “Aspects of Reception of Law”. American Journal of Comparative Law 44: 335–351.
Google Scholar
Wilejczyk, Magdalena. 2014. “Nadużycie zarzutu przedawnienia przez dłużnika czy nieuwzględnienie upływu przedawnienia ze względu na szczególne okoliczności leżące po stronie wierzyciela – uwagi de lege ferenda”. Monitor Prawniczy 5: 248–254.
Google Scholar
Wilejczyk, Magdalena. 2014. Zagadnienia etyczne części ogólnej prawa cywilnego. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
Wolter, Aleksander. 1953. Prawo cywilne – część ogólna. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Google Scholar
Wójcik, Sylwester. 1991. “Przedawnienie w prawie cywilnym po zmianie kodeksu cywilnego ustawą z 28 lipca 1990”. Przegląd Sądowy 1–2: 25–36.
Google Scholar
Act of 13 April 2018 amending the Act – Civil Code and some other acts (Dz.U. of 2018, item 1104).
Google Scholar
Act of 10 May 2013 amending the Code of Civil Procedure (Dz.U. 2013 item 654).
Google Scholar
Act of 16 September 2011 amending the Code of Civil Procedure and some other acts (Dz.U. 233, item 1381).
Google Scholar
Code of Civil Procedure of 17 November 1964 (Dz.U. 2016, item 1822 with amendments).
Google Scholar
Polish Civil Code of 23 April 1964 (Dz.U. 2016, item 380 with amendments).
Google Scholar
Act on General Provisions of the Civil Law of 18 July 1950 (Dz.U. 34, item 311).
Google Scholar
Regulation of the President of the Republic of Poland of 27 October 1933 – Code of Obligations (Dz.U. 82, item 598 with amendments).
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.