Supreme Court denies designation of court for divorce case due to prior public hearing on same day.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court refused to designate a court for a divorce proceeding filed by T. Z. against D. Z. The applicant argued for a venue change, but the court noted the matter was already heard in a closed session on the same day. Consequently, the court applied the principle of a contrario to Article 45 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, concluding that no designation was necessary.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 45 § 2 k.p.c.; Art. 45 § 3 k.p.c.: Where a divorce case is already heard in a closed session on the same day, the court must refuse a request to designate a different court under the principle of a contrario.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
Sygn. akt V CO 233/20 POSTANOWIENIE Dnia 26 listopada 2020 r.Sąd Najwyższy w składzie: SSN Paweł Grzegorczyk w sprawie z wniosku T. Z.o oznaczenie sądu właściwego do rozpoznania sprawy,z powództwa T. Z.przeciwko D. Z.o rozwód po rozpoznaniu na posiedzeniu niejawnym w Izbie Cywilnej w dniu 26 listopada 2020 r., odmawia oznaczenia sądu właściwego (art. 45 § 2 k.p.c. a contrario). UZASADNIENIE