Legislator Case Law & Legislation
I PZP 5/08 AI generated

Appeal against partial dismissal of claim and partial rejection of suit in one judgment requires separate fees.

Case Number I PZP 5/08
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court ruled that a party filing an appeal against a judgment containing both a partial dismissal and a partial rejection must pay separate fees for each distinct legal remedy. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment's partial dismissal, while the lower court questioned whether the separate ruling on the partial rejection also required a distinct fee. The court held that since the two rulings are legally distinct, the appeal covers the dismissal but the rejection requires a separate filing fee under the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 367 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 394 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 3 ust. 1 i ust. 2 pkt 2 ustawy o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych: When a judgment contains both a ruling on the main claim and a separate ruling on the rejection of the suit, an appeal against the former does not cover the latter, requiring a separate filing fee for the rejection ruling.

Keywords

AI generated
partial dismissal of claim partial rejection of suit separate filing fees appeal vs. objection Civil Procedure Code court costs regulation distinct legal remedies

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 367 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 394 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 3 ust. 1 i ust. 2 pkt 2 ustawy o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych
Art. 35 ust. 1 zdanie pierwsze ustawy o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych
art. 390 § 1 k.p.c
art. 394 § 2 k.p.c
art. 394 k.p.c
art. 394 § 1 pkt 9 k.p.c
art. 394 § 1 k.p.c
art. 325 k.p.c

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Uchwała z dnia 11 października 1995 r., III CZP 138/95
Wyrok z dnia 19 września 2002 r., II CKN 1090/00
Postanowienie z dnia 20 maja 2005 r., III CZ 40/05
Postanowienie z dnia 31 sierpnia 2006 r., I CZ 64/06
Postanowienie z dnia 19 grudnia 2007 r., V CZ 123/07
III CZP 138/95
III CZP 27/71

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