Legislator Case Law & Legislation
I PKN 1/96 AI generated

Filing a reinstatement suit after the deadline implicitly requests reinstatement of the deadline if the employer failed to notify the employee.

Case Number I PKN 1/96
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court partially quashed the lower court's judgment, allowing the employee's claim for reinstatement while remanding the damages claim for retrial. The employee filed a suit to reinstate her employment after missing the statutory appeal deadline, arguing she was never formally notified of her dismissal. The court held that filing the reinstatement suit itself implicitly requests the reinstatement of the missed deadline when the employer failed to provide written notice and legal instructions. Consequently, the court granted the reinstatement claim but sent the damages portion back to the lower court for reconsideration.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 264 § 1, 2 KP; Art. 265 § 1 KP: Filing a lawsuit for reinstatement after the expiration of the appeal period implicitly requests the reinstatement of that period if the employer failed to notify the employee in writing of the dismissal and the applicable deadlines.

Keywords

AI generated
reinstatement of appeal deadline implicit request in lawsuit written notice requirement employer notification duty statutory appeal period labor law procedure employee protection

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 264 § 1 KP
Art. 264 § 2 KP
Art. 265 § 1 KP
Art. 30 § 3 KP
Art. 30 § 4 KP
Art. 393 § 13 KPC

Cited Case Law

AI generated

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text