Direct delivery of pleadings in administrative court proceedings

Abstract

The article addresses the problem of direct deliveries of pleadings, which professional attorneys of the parties and participants of the proceedings are obliged to perform in administrative court proceedings. The premise for conducting the research was the doubts appearing in the legal doctrine and practice as to the individual aspects of the analysed  regulation. The aim of the research was to present this institution and to answer the question of whether it constitutes a guarantee of efficient proceedings before an administrative court. The analysis was carried out using three methods: dogmatic-legal, comparative-legal and historical. The research shows, firstly, that the institution of direct delivery has undergone a significant evolution. As a result of amendments, delivery became obligatory, and the catalogue of entities obliged to make such service was expanded. The next stage in the evolution of this institution will be electronic delivery between attorneys. Secondly, the research shows that the analysed institution is imprecise with regard to many issues. The legislator has not clearly indicated the exceptions to direct service. Similarly, there may be reservations regarding the imprecise determination of the consequences of a breach of the obligations arising from direct service. Thirdly, by burdening attorneys with the necessity of direct delivery, the legislator overlooked the financial aspect of fulfilling this obligation. In multi-party cases, the cost of service may constitute a barrier to access to court protection. As it stands now, a situation may arise in which a pleading filed by an attorney will not receive a course of action – but not due to his/her objective defaults, but rather due to the court’s unfavourable interpretation of Article 66 of the Act on Administrative Court Proceedings. As a result of the legislator’s lack of precision, the right to a fair trial may therefore be violated.