Oddalenie powództwa oczywiście bezzasadnego w świetle art. 6 EKPC
Dismissal of the claim manifestly unfounded in the light of Art. 6 of the ECHR

Summary/Abstract: Background: The amendment of July 4, 2019 to the Code of Civil Procedure introduces a few changes vital for the Polish civil procedure. One of them is the possibility, regulated in Article 1911, for the court to dismissthe action case it lacks in a closed session in the merit. This institution has generated controversy in terms of exercising the individual’s right to a court. Under the provision in question, the court may evaluate the filed action at the initial stage of hearing the case without taking any action. On the one hand, therefore, this provision achieves a goal of streamlining proceedings, while on the other hand – in the event that a claim is dismissed and a judgment in this regard becomes final, res judicata occurs, which makes it impossible for a plaintiff to pursue the same claim against the same person again in court, which entails severe consequences.Research purpose: The article aims to examine the compatibility of the institution of dismissal of a manifestly unfounded claim with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by both national legislation and acts of European law. The author also discusses whether the European Court of Human Rights may ascertain violation of the right of access to a court by the national court, despite the analogy of the institution of dismissal of the claim as manifestly unfounded and the institution of rejection of the complaint by the ECHR under Art. 35 of the Convention.Methods: In this article linguistic-logical and legal-comparative methods are used. Using the comparative analysis, the current case law of the ECHR and Polish courts is presented.Conclusions: The institution of dismissal of the claim as manifestly unfounded undoubtedly serves to speed up the civil proceedings. It is also admissible in the light of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular its Art. 6, but only if it does not infringe the essence of the right to a fair trial and fulfills the proper purpose.

• Details
• Contents