SKARGA O STWIERDZENIE NIEZGODNOŚCI Z PRAWEM PRAWOMOCNEGO ORZECZENIA JAKO INSTRUMENT DOCHODZENIA OD SKARBU PAŃSTWA NAPRAWIENIA SZKODY WYRZADZONEJ WYD

Rules of the Polish Constitution and the Civil Code require functioning special proceedings in which parties should have a possibility for claiming compensation for damages caused by the final judgments, which are contrary to law. The complaint for declaring a final judgment contrary to law introduced to the Civil Procedure Code has established such relevant proceedings in civil procedure. The contrariety to law should only be qualified as a significant breach of law, and it should not concern differences of interpretation. Complaint is allowed only if it concerns a final decision rendered by the second instance court and only if the party suffered damage. Complaint for declaring judgment as contrary to law should not be treated as a regular appellate proceeding. This claim complements the cassation complaint, and the reopening of proceedings. The complaint may be filed by the parties (a plaintiff or a defendant), the General Prosecutor or the Commissioner for Citizen’s Rights, and only if the final judgment can not be challenged by the other legal remedy. This claim is not allowed when the other complaint may be filed and it is also not admissible against the Supreme Court’s decisions. The purpose of this legal remedy is not to quash the challenged judgment and to remand the case to the second-instance or the first-instance court for reconsideration. It is an extraordinary appellate measure that a party may use not to contest valid decision rendered by a second-instance court, but to file a compensatory claim against the State Treasury. The declaration by the Supreme Court of contrariety of a challenged judgment to law does not eliminate this judgment but it only opens an opportunity for claiming damages from the State Treasury in separate proceedings. The complaint for declaring a final judgment contrary to law has modified procedural rules governing the issue of the State Treasury’s liability for causing a damage. The article proves that the access to this legal remedy is substantially limited. But this mechanism should not be considered as the only possibility to get a compensation for unlawful activity of the judiciary.