Supreme Court holds that a legal person's procedural capacity remains valid despite a subsequent lack of representing organs.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's dismissal of a company's appeal, ruling that the company retained its procedural capacity even after losing its authorized organs. The lower court had incorrectly declared the company's power of attorney void under Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Code due to the procedural suspension caused by the organ vacancy. The Supreme Court clarified that while an organ vacancy prevents the entity from acting, it does not strip the entity of its legal or procedural capacity, thereby validating the previously granted power of attorney.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 64 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 65 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 67 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 38 k.c.; Art. 96 k.p.c.: The lack of an organ authorized to represent a legal person does not deprive that person of its judicial or procedural capacity, nor does it cause the expiration of a power of attorney granted prior to the vacancy.