We will face a technological revolution in civil proceedings. Are we heading in the right direction?

The effects of the amendment to the civil proceedings regulations concerning the computerisation of these proceedings, including the introduction of the possibility to serve court pleadings through an information and communication technology system are currently unknown. Especially given that until 8 September 2019, it will be possible to select the option of filing court pleadings through the information and communication technology system, if for technical reasons, attributable to the court in question, such option is acceptable.

From one side, the above mentioned system may considerably accelerate the exchange of correspondence between the parties and the court, as it enables to avoid the intermediation of the post operator, and thus minimise the risk of loss of the court pleading.

But from the other side...

The disadvantages of this solution include the dangers resulting from the vulnerability of the information and communication technology systems to errors or failure (known, by the way, from the functioning of information portals of common courts), malware or viruses. In the case of the traditional system of service, there is a risk of loss of the writ, whereas in the case of the information and communication technology system it may happen that a writ is not properly served due to an error. However, there is also the risk of loss of files due to their deletion, done either by mistake or voluntarily. Another risk is the possibility of leak of court pleadings as a result of a system or human error, or a hackers’ attack.

It seems that, however, in general the amendment should accelerate the examination of cases, even due to the introduced regulations concerning the electronic service by default.

I agree that this is an extremely important change. In the event of a lack of confirmation of receipt of correspondence, the electronic service will be deemed effective after the lapse of fourteen days from the date of placing a pleading in the information and communication technology system, and not after the actual reading of the pleading’s content. The electronic service by default can be considered either from the perspective of its advantages such as the reduction of the possibility of obstruction of proceedings by the parties, or from the perspective of its disadvantages. It may lead to a situation where both the parties to the proceedings and as their attorneys will be reluctant to select the electronic form of proceedings due to the risk of system errors, which may influence the actual familiarisation with the content of the writ in question, or the fact that the letter may be deemed as served in a situation where the party or its attorney is on holidays and does not have the possibility to familiarise himself with the letter.

The entities that have already enjoyed the meagre benefits of computerisation of the Polish courts, I mean the electronic proceedings by writ of payment, already have an account in the e-sad.gov.pl. service. Will they be able to use the same system to file writs by electronic means in ordinary civil proceedings? The question is justified given that concerns have already been expressed concerning the time schedule of launching electronic registry offices in courts.

Accounts in the electronic registry office and in the e-court constitute separate systems. Even though, the legislator created the electronic registry office on the model of the e-court, the two systems were not combined.

Will thus the concerned parties be able to create one account for the purposes of handling proceedings in courts all over the country? This would be a major facilitation for the claimants pursuing their claims against defenders having registered offices in different parts of Poland.

The rules of creating an account in the information and communication technology system and making it available will be provided for in the ordinance of the minister of justice. The draft ordinance does not specify whether the accounts will be created individually for each court or whether it will be one, universal account. However, given the assumptions of the upcoming changes, it will be a universal account created on one portal of the Electronic Registry Office. Time will tell whether the courts will meet the requirements of this system.

In order to create an account in the information and communication system and use it effectively, will it be sufficient that the claimant uses a signature confirmed by a free, trusted profile in the ePUAP system?

In accordance with Article 126 par. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the amended version, a court pleading filed through the information and communication technology system is accompanied with a secure electronic signature verified by means of a valid qualified certificate, or with a signature confirmed by a trusted profile in the ePUAP system. This means that a signature confirmed by a trusted profile in the ePUAP system will be sufficient to file a court pleading by electronic means.

Will the selection of the electronic form of contacting the court result in lower court fees for parties pursuing claims, as it is now in the case of electronic proceedings by writ of payment?

Unfortunately, it will not. The legislator did not provide for such solutions. In the case of selecting the electronic form of filing court pleadings in general proceedings, it will not contribute in any way to reducing the costs of proceedings borne by the parties, except for, of course, administrative costs, which are borne if it is necessary to exchange correspondence with the court by traditional post. However, if the claimant chooses the electronic form of conducting proceedings, while the defender sticks to traditional means, the costs of conducting such proceedings will increase on the part of the courts.

Why?

In accordance with Article 1311 par. 1 of the Code of Civil Proceedings, the court serves writs through the information and communication technology system, if the addressee filed a pleading through this system or selected the option of filing writs by means of this system. This means that the addressee selects the form of service. The court may not force a party in any way to select the manner in which court writs will be delivered to it.

If the claimant chooses the manner of contacting by electronic means, and the defender does not decide so, then the court will have to make a copy of the statement of claims for the defendant to serve it upon him by traditional means, in the form of a printout from the information and communication technology system together with appendixes. Currently, when the electronic form does not function yet, the obligation to make a copy of the statement of claims for the defendant, and covering the costs connected with it, rests each time with the claimant, and not with the court.