You must know where the defendant lives
Although Civil Procedure Code Art. 126 §2 does not clearly indicate that the term “address” means an individual defendant’s home address, and not some other address, the common practice of Polish courts has been to require that the home address be provided. If the plaintiff does not indicate the address where an individual defendant resides or the address of the registered office of a corporate defendant, the statement of claim will be rejected because it cannot be processed properly.
Supreme Court of Poland resolution of 17 July 2014 (Case III CZP 43/14)
As the Supreme Court has pointed out before, indicating the home address of the plaintiff and the defendant in the statement of claim helps the court identify and individualise the parties and facilitates communications between the court and the parties (Supreme Court resolution of 26 February 2014, Case III CZP 137/13, Biuletyn SN 2014 no. 2 p. 11)). It also enables determination of the proper geographical venue of the court and the method for transmission and service of court documents, and more broadly affects the resolution of cross-border issues and decisions on the existence of Polish jurisdiction over the case.
The obligation to indicate in the first pleading the place of residence or registered office and the addresses of the parties and their statutory representatives and attorneys is set forth in Art. 126 §2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Although Civil Code Art. 25 provides that the place of residence of a natural person is the locality where the person resides with the intention of staying there permanently, it is understood for purpose of civil procedure that it is necessary to indicate the specific address. If this formal requirement is not met, it is grounds to reject the statement of claim under Civil Procedure Code Art. 130 §2.
Workplace address is insufficient
The issue facing the Supreme Court in its recent resolution was whether it is permissible to indicate the defendant’s place of work in the statement of claim as the place for service of pleadings. In this case, the plaintiff did not provide the defendant’s home address when filing the statement of claim and did not comply with the order by the presiding judge of the division of the regional court requiring the plaintiff to provide the defendant’s home address, and consequently the statement of claim was rejected under Civil Procedure Code Art. 130 §2.
The plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal against this decision. The court of appeal had doubts and submitted the following legal question to the Supreme Court for resolution: “Does the plaintiff’s failure to indicate in the statement of claim the place of residence of the defendant who is a natural person, while indicating the defendant’s workplace in a manner enabling service of pleadings, constitute a formal defect justifying an order rejecting the statement of claim?”
The Supreme Court’s answer to this question was Yes.
In the justification for its resolution, the Supreme Court stressed that “according to all leading dictionaries of the Polish language, ‘address’ should be understood to mean the place of residence of a person or the ‘location’ of an institution. … As Civil Procedure Code Art. 126 §2(1) refers to the ‘addresses of the parties,’ with respect to natural persons this can mean only the residential addresses of the parties, and not the address of their workplace, particularly because the concept of ‘address of the party’s workplace’ does not exist…. In this situation, seeking any cross-references in Civil Procedure Code Art. 135 §1 is unjustified—leaving aside the fact that the formal requirements for the statement of claim must be carefully tied to service—particularly as that section refers to the ‘workplace’ of the party and not the address.”
Because it is generally at the place of residence that a person expects and receives correspondence, the connection to this specific point guarantees the defendant a fair trial and the right to be heard. This is not true of the workplace, particularly considering that this is not a fixed location in the case of mobile employees. Moreover, if it were sufficient to provide only the address of the defendant’s workplace it would undermine certain rules for service of pleadings set forth in Civil Procedure Code Art. 136, 138 and 139.
The Supreme Court recognised that in an exceptional situation the duty to provide the defendant’s home address may limit his access to the courts, but said this is not a universal point of reference. The right to seek the protection of the courts is subject to certain sometimes serious limitations when it is necessary to comply with certain legal formalities or surmount certain procedural barriers.
It appears in this case, as the Supreme Court also pointed out, that the court of appeal overlooked the amendment to Civil Procedure Code Art. 126 made under the amending act of 10 May 2013 which went into force on 7 July 2013 and which made clear that in addition to the defendant’s “place” of residence the statement of claim must also state the defendant’s “address.”
For these reasons, the Supreme Court adopted the following resolution: “The plaintiff’s failure to indicate in the statement of claim the place and address of residence of the defendant who is a natural person is a formal defect of the statement of claim preventing the statement of claim from being properly processed.”
Oliwia Lewandowska, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration Practice, Wardyński & Partners