Supreme Court dismisses appeal when lawyer's power of attorney lacks specific authorization for cassation instance.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of their cassation. The appellant's lawyer submitted a power of attorney that, despite containing a printed general clause, had handwritten additions limiting its scope to the first and second instances. The court held that the lawyer failed to provide a separate authorization for the cassation instance, which is a mandatory requirement under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the cassation was inadmissible due to the lack of proper representation for that specific procedural stage.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 393 § 1, 2 KPC; Art. 397 § 2, 385 KPC: A power of attorney submitted for filing a cassation must explicitly authorize the representative to act in the cassation instance; a general authorization limited to lower instances is insufficient, and failure to supplement this defect results in the inadmissibility of the cassation.