Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
II PK 17/11 AI generated

Supreme Court partially allowed lawyer's wage claim, dismissing statute of limitations interruption due to vague settlement summons.

Case Number II PK 17/11
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court partially overturned the lower court's dismissal of Alicja C.'s wage claim against Group L. SA, ordering a retrial on specific salary equalization and court representation costs. While the court found the statutory basis for the wage claim valid, it ruled that the settlement summons failed to interrupt the statute of limitations because it lacked specific details on the underlying cases and amounts. Consequently, the claim was deemed time-barred, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the remaining issues.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 244 ust. 1 ustawy o radcach prawnych; Art. 291 § 1 k.p.; Art. 295 § 1 k.p.: A settlement summons interrupts the statute of limitations only if it clearly identifies the specific claims, their amounts, and the period of enforceability; a vague summons regarding court representation costs does not constitute such an interruption.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations settlement summons lawyer remuneration court representation costs remedial proceedings statutory interpretation labor law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 244 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 6 lipca 1982 r. o radcach prawnych
Art. 291 § 1 k.p.
Art. 295 § 1 k.p.
Art. 773 k.p.
Art. 39815 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 39814 k.p.c.
Art. 108 § 2 k.p.c.
Art. 39821 k.p.c.
art. 291 § 1 k.p
art. 185 § 1 k.p.c

Cited Case Law

AI generated
V CSK 238/06
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; failure to specify claims prevents statute of limitations interruption under Civil Code.
III PK 22/06
Supreme Court dismissed appeal; labor court cannot set salary within statutory limits if regulations exist.
I PK 58/02
II PK 180/06
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where employee failed to prove discrimination grounds required by law.
I PK 131/08
I PK 28/09
Supreme Court dismissed appeal; plaintiff failed to prove discrimination or equal treatment violation regarding salary.

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