POLAND: An Introduction to Litigation
Delayed Justice
One of the state's core responsibilities is undoubtedly to ensure a well-functioning justice system. This covers providing fair resolutions in civil disputes between individuals, in commercial cases involving businesses and in conflicts between citizens and public administration bodies, as well as the fair and efficient handling of criminal charges. In Poland, a key component of this state obligation is the individual’s right to a court hearing, including the right to a fair trial. Article 45(1) of the Polish Constitution guarantees that “everyone has the right to a fair and public trial by a competent, independent, impartial and autonomous court without undue delay”. This protection of individual rights aligns with the standards set by Article 6(1) of the European Convention, which ensures similar safeguards within the European human rights framework.
Without Undue Delay
For cases to be resolved without undue delay, it is essential that courts function efficiently. The sheer volume and diversity of cases, varying significantly in severity and complexity, make it unlikely that an ideal situation can be achieved. A common concern in Poland is that cases take too long – often far too long. From our own practice, we could cite numerous instances where the first hearing in a civil case is scheduled more than a year after serving the statement of claim. The process is further prolonged as subsequent hearings are scheduled months later, followed by an extended period for a court-appointed expert to prepare their opinion, during which time the proceedings come to a standstill. After the court of first instance renders its verdict, additional months pass before the justification is prepared, at which time the parties can appeal against that verdict. This will lead to another year or so of waiting before the case is considered by the court of second instance.
The situation is similar in administrative courts – if a party to administrative proceedings files a complaint against the decision of a public administration body, it will take two years for the court to rule, and another year or more for a possible cassation appeal against that ruling before the Supreme Administrative Court.
Things are even worse in criminal cases, especially those involving white-collar crimes. We know of cases in which a final and conclusive decision was finally made almost 20 years after the criminal proceedings in the case were initiated. Of course, there are also proceedings that proceed smoothly and cases that are resolved quickly, but these are still the exception rather than the rule.
Looking for a Reason
It is unlikely that there is a single clear reason for this situation. Some cases are inherently complex, involving large volumes of evidence, requiring specialised knowledge or necessitating expert opinions. Cases with international elements, where parties or witnesses are abroad, can also prolong the time of proceedings due to the need to make notifications and serve documents in a special way. The caseload is greater than in the past, and it is not uncommon for judges to have too many cases to deal with and multiple hearings scheduled on the same day, significantly impeding their ability to conduct proceedings efficiently. There are probably additional factors too, but even all these things taken together do not justify the prolonged delays individuals or businesses face; they are often kept waiting for five to seven years for a court to confirm the legitimacy of their claims or complaint.
And what about those who live under the burden of charges in a criminal case for ten years or more? By the time a judicial decision is made on the merits of these charges, their life circumstances have often changed dramatically. Judicial rulings rendered after many years no longer effectively fulfil their function. Frequently, these belated court decisions hold little practical significance for the parties and may be of purely symbolic importance. In civil cases, the consequences can be tragic for the defendants when prolonged trials result in interest on the awarded amount exceeding the original claim. There is little solace in the explanation that they should have anticipated such consequences when choosing to litigate. After all, people typically resort to litigation only when their interests could not be protected through amicable means.
Looking for Improvements
It cannot be said that the Polish state has done nothing, or even very little, to fulfil its constitutional obligation to ensure that court cases are resolved without undue delay. In recent years, legislative reforms have been introduced to streamline and expedite the adjudication of civil cases, including the provision of single-judge panels instead of three-judge panels, the reintroduction of a special procedure in commercial cases to consolidate evidence, measures to preclude certain evidence as a way to discipline parties and their attorneys, and the introduction of pre-trial hearings to resolve disputes and organise trial scheduling.
We should not underestimate the enhanced role of arbitration courts in resolving matters like corporate disputes involving resolutions of company meetings, the expanded powers of notaries to include non-contentious inheritance matters or the growth of mediation services. However, not all court functions can be effectively replaced by private institutions, which is why efforts to improve the work and efficiency of the courts are both necessary and ongoing.
The ability to issue judgments in closed session without the need to schedule a hearing for this purpose also serves to speed up the examination of cases. The computerisation of courts carried out in recent years has been highly beneficial, offering advantages such as electronic access to case information and certain documents through the court information portal, the electronic delivery of court decisions via the professional attorneys’ portal, court recordings of hearings and the creation of e-records. Furthermore, the system allows for the collection of written testimonies from witnesses and explanations from the parties involved.
A time- and cost-effective solution in civil cases is undoubtedly the use of remote hearings, where the court, attorneys, parties and witnesses participate via remote communication tools provided by the court. Initially introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic due to travel restrictions, this method has since been integrated into civil procedure. The next step in this direction, which is currently underway, is the introduction of e-service in correspondence for public administration offices, attorneys, legal advisers, bailiffs and notaries. At the same time, work is underway in Poland to streamline criminal procedure. Additionally, there is significant discussion, and not only talk, of leveraging AI in judicial and prosecutorial units as a supportive tool. This technology aims to enhance both the organisational efficiency of these units and the substantive work of judges and prosecutors.
The Human Factor
However, it is important to remember that, while modern analytical and communication tools, along with easy access to digitised case files, are important, they alone are not sufficient to ensure efficient proceedings that lead to informed decisions. It is also necessary to provide the judge with the appropriate environment and resources to properly familiarise themselves with the case and render decisions without undue delay. After all, justice that is delayed is no longer justice.