CPC Art. 5 violation alone cannot be cassation ground under Art. 393(1)(2) CPC without specific impact.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by Henryk P. against the Second Instance Court's refusal of his disability pension claim. The appellant argued that the court violated Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code by failing to appoint a lawyer ex officio and not fully explaining procedural rules. The court rejected this, ruling that Article 5 is a general guideline requiring specific factual impact to justify cassation, which was absent here as the appellant had been properly informed and did not request a lawyer.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 5 KPC; Art. 393 § 1 pkt 2 KPC: A general procedural rule under Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot serve as an independent ground for cassation under Article 393(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code without demonstrating that a specific provision was violated and that the error materially affected the case outcome.