Legislator Case Law & Legislation
II UKN 551/97 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal reinstatement when a letter's content, not title, defines its procedural purpose.

Case Number II UKN 551/97
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court's dismissal of an appeal as time-barred and remanded the case for reconsideration. The appellant, representing himself, submitted a letter on August 26 explaining the delay in filing his appeal due to illness, which the lower court rejected because it was not explicitly titled a request for time restoration. The court ruled that procedural documents must be interpreted based on their substantive content rather than their formal title, thereby granting the appellant the opportunity to have his appeal reinstated.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 369 § 1 KPC; Art. 373 KPC; Art. 168, 169 KPC; Art. 393 § 13 KPC; Art. 361 KPC: A procedural document must be qualified according to its substantive content regardless of its title, and a court cannot reject an appeal for delay without first considering a request to restore the deadline if such a request is substantively contained in a submitted letter.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural document qualification substance over form appeal reinstatement time limit restoration self-representation KPC procedural law content-based interpretation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 369 § 1 KPC
Art. 373 KPC
Art. 168 KPC
Art. 169 KPC
Art. 393 § 13 KPC
Art. 361 KPC

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