Judicial decisions

​On 15 July 2026, the Supreme Court, sitting in the Civil Chamber, following an appeal submitted by the complainant, repealed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Łódź rejecting the cassation appeal.

The complainant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, attaching two copies of the appeal to it. The Court of Appeal requested the complainant to rectify the formal deficiencies in the appeal by "providing the defendant's PESEL number, sending one copy of the cassation appeal and submitting a power of attorney document authorising representation before the Supreme Court". In response, the professionally represented complainant provided his PESEL number in a letter and, along with the letter, submitted the power of attorney document as well as a copy of the appeal. However, no copies were attached to the letter rectifying the formal deficiencies.

After the expiry of the time limit for rectifying the deficiencies in the cassation appeal, the court of second instance rejected the appeal. It pointed out that the deficiencies specified in the aforementioned request had not been rectified, as the document rectifying the deficiencies in the cassation appeal was itself deficient. No copies were attached to it, and thus the deficiencies specified in the notice were not rectified. The court referred in this regard to the position expressed in the Supreme Court's resolution of 29 July 2003, III PZP 10/03, OSNP No. 3/2004, item 43, according to which a document that is itself affected by formal deficiencies cannot rectify the formal deficiencies of another (previous) document.

The Supreme Court, having upheld the appeal against the decision to reject the cassation appeal, pointed out that the cassation appeal was, in fact, affected by only one deficiency – the failure to attach the required number of copies of the appeal. Apart from a copy for the opposing party, the complainant should have attached to the appeal two copies for the Supreme Court's files and for the Prosecutor General (Article 398⁴(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). No other deficiencies were found, so they could not justify the rejection of the cassation appeal. It results from the Supreme Court's resolution (legal principle) of 14 May 2025, III CZP 39/23, OSNC No. 3/2026, item 20, stating that a cassation appeal need not meet the requirements specified in Article 126(2) of the CCP for the first pleading in the case. Therefore, the complainant's omission of his PESEL number could not be treated as a formal deficiency of the cassation appeal. Furthermore, the question of the power of attorney of the person lodging the cassation appeal to act on behalf of the complainant was already established by the power of attorney document attached to the case file prior to the lodging of the aforementioned cassation appeal.

Therefore, in assessing the correctness of the decision to reject the cassation appeal, the decisive factor was whether the complainant had managed to rectify the deficiency in the cassation appeal, namely the failure to attach the required number of copies. The Supreme Court found that the deficiency had been rectified in this respect, as the complainant had submitted a copy of the cassation appeal to the Court of Appeal.

At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that a document rectifying a formal deficiency in another document effectively constitutes a supplement to the original, incomplete document – and, as such, must be delivered to other parties. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 128(1) of the CCP, copies must also be attached to it. The point, however, is that deficiencies in a procedural document vary in nature. Rectifying some of them requires the submission of a procedural document, which (by its very nature) must contain the appropriate number of copies. However, there may be deficiencies which can be rectified without the need to submit such a document, for example, by signing an unsigned document at the court or by paying the remaining court fee.

In the present case, the document submitted by the complainant should be regarded as a cover letter, rather than as a document substantively rectifying the deficiencies in the appeal. The sole substantive element of the document, consisting of the provision of a PESEL number, did not, in fact, relate to any real formal deficiency in the cassation appeal. In view of the submission of a single copy of the cassation appeal, in accordance with the decision on rectifying the deficiencies in the cassation appeal, the Court of Appeal was in possession of a complete set of documents enabling the cassation appeal to proceed correctly. It was not necessary to submit a cover letter to the Court of Appeal in a required number of copies (including attachments consisting of further copies of the cassation appeal) in order to rectify such a deficiency, as the letter was of a merely technical nature, i.e. it served to assist the court in identifying the case to which the missing copy had been submitted.  

Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the appeal should be upheld, as the only real formal deficiency in the cassation appeal had been rectified. 

Decision of the Supreme Court of 15 July 2026, with the reasons (III CZ 190/25) 

Polish original