{"id":2919,"date":"2024-06-30T17:10:55","date_gmt":"2024-06-30T15:10:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ewspa.edu.pl\/e-czasopismo\/nr-4-2\/zagadnienie-prawne-przedstawiane-sadowi-najwyzszemu-w-toku-postepowania-odwolawczego\/"},"modified":"2024-07-03T17:46:05","modified_gmt":"2024-07-03T15:46:05","slug":"zagadnienie-prawne-przedstawiane-sadowi-najwyzszemu-w-toku-postepowania-odwolawczego","status":"publish","type":"e-czasopismo","link":"https:\/\/ewspa.edu.pl\/en\/e-czasopismo\/nr-4-2\/zagadnienie-prawne-przedstawiane-sadowi-najwyzszemu-w-toku-postepowania-odwolawczego\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Question Presented to the Supreme Court During the Examination of an Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This paper presents an outline of the title issue together with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court regarding the resolution of legal questions that raise serious doubts. Established in Art. 390 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the institution of legal questions
\u2013 as a derogation from the constitutional principle of judicial independence of judges, who in the exercise of their office are subject only to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and laws \u2013 should be applied only when there is a real need to clarify serious
legal doubts of decisive importance for the resolution of the case, remaining with this decision in the causal relationship. In the event of ordinary interpretation doubts, the appellate court should resolve them on its own, using the knowledge provided by the
provisions themselves and their understanding in previous case law and legal science. Presenting a legal issue that raises serious doubts in the case of various interpretations of the same provision appearing in case law will be used in a situation where, in the opinion of the second-instance court, the adoption of each of these interpretations is supported by important legal arguments presented by this court, and the choice of the appropriate interpretation is not explained either the current position of the judiciary or the legal doctrine. The subject of a legal question submitted for resolution should be a legal issue that raises truly serious doubts. If ordinary doubts arise, the appellate court should resolve them on its own. However, neither the gravity of the problem contained in it nor the discrepancies in the case law and literature as to how to solve it constitute an independent basis for submitting a legal question to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Ajdukiewicz K., J\u0119zyk i poznanie, tom 1, Warszawa 1985. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Ereci\u0144ski T., Apelacja w post\u0119powaniu cywilnym, Warszawa 2020. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. G\u00f3ra-B\u0142aszczykowska A., Kodeks post\u0119powania cywilnego, tom 1A. Komentarz. Art. 1\u2013424\u00b9\u00b2, Warszawa 2020. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. G\u00f3ra-B\u0142aszczykowska A., \u015arodki zaskar\u017cenia w post\u0119powaniu cywilnym. Komentarz do art. 367\u2013424\u00b9\u00b2 k.p.c., Warszawa 2020. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. EPPiSM nr 4\/2023\/68 www.eppism.ewspa.edu.pl115 [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Hanausek S., Orzeczenie s\u0105du rewizyjnego w procesie cywilnym, Warszawa 1966. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Kodeks post\u0119powania cywilnego. Komentarz, tom 2. Art. 205\u00b9\u2013424\u00b9\u00b2, red. A. Marciniak, Warszawa 2019. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Kodeks post\u0119powania cywilnego. Komentarz, tom 1. Art. 1\u2013505\u00b3\u2079, red. T. Szanci\u0142o, Warszawa 2023. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Kodeks post\u0119powania cywilnego. Komentarz, tom 2, red. T. Ereci\u0144ski, Warszawa 2012. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Manowska M., Apelacja w post\u0119powaniu cywilnym. Komentarz i orzecznictwo, [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Warszawa 2022. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. Naworski J., Przes\u0142anki wyst\u0105pienia z pytaniem prawnym \u2013 glosa \u2013 III CZP 32\/10, \u201eIustitia\u201d 2012, 1. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. Osajda K., Przes\u0142anki odmowy podj\u0119cia uchwa\u0142y przez SN w post\u0119powaniu cywilnym, Warszawa 2018. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. Rola orzecznictwa w systemie prawnym, red. T. Giaro, Warszawa 2016. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  15. System prawa procesowego cywilnego, tom 3, cz. 1, red. J. Gudowski, Warszawa 2013. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  16. W\u0142odyka S., Przes\u0142anki dopuszczalno\u015bci pyta\u0144 prawnych do S\u0105du Najwy\u017cszego, \u201eNowe Prawo\u201d 1971, 2. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  17. Wolter W., Lipczy\u0144ska M., Elementy logiki, Warszawa 1980. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  18. Zieli\u0144ski A., Wyroki s\u0105du II instancji w post \u0119powaniu cywilnym. Komentarz praktyczny z przegl\u0105dem orzecznictwa. Wzory orzecze\u0144 s\u0105du II instancji, Warszawa 2014. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  19. Ziembi\u0144ski Z., Logika praktyczna, Warszawa 1995. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  20. Zienkiewicz D., W\u0105tpliwo\u015bci redakcyjne zwi\u0105zane z przedstawianiem zagadnie\u0144 prawnych do rozstrzygni\u0119cia w orzecznictwie S\u0105du Najwy\u017cszego, \u201ePalestra\u201d 2000, 5\u20136. [Google Scholar]<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Most read articles by the same author(s)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n