Supreme Court dismissed cassation regarding improper passive standing against a municipal office, not the budgetary center. The court ruled the employer was the recreational center, not the city office. The court dismissed the appeal because the lower court correctly identified the employer as the recreational center, not the municipal office. The court held that the city office was not the employer, so the claim against it lacked proper standing. The court found the lower court's decision on the employer's identity correct and dismissed the appeal. The court ruled that the city office was not the employer, so the claim against it lacked proper standing. The court dismissed the appeal because the lower court correctly identified the employer as the recreational center. The court held that the city office was not the employer, so the claim against it lacked proper standing. The court found the lower court's decision on the employer's identity correct and dismissed the appeal.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by Zbigniew W. against the City Office and the Recreational Center. The lower court awarded damages to the plaintiff from the City Office but dismissed the claim against the Recreational Center, establishing the latter as the employer. The Supreme Court agreed that the City Office was not the employer, rendering the claim against it without proper standing, while upholding the lower court's finding that the Recreational Center was the correct employer. Consequently, the court rejected the arguments regarding procedural violations and dismissed the appeal as unfounded.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 1 pkt 3 ustawy z dnia 22 marca 1990 r. o pracownikach samorządowych; Art. 4 tej ustawy: The employer of a public servant employed by a budgetary unit is the unit itself, not the municipal office administering it; therefore, a claim for damages must be directed against the correct employer to establish passive standing.