Press release after the hearing Print

The powers of a competent court official to adjudicate on court-appointed legal representation, district courts’ review of such decisions; the mandatory requirement of professional legal representation in proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court SK 87/19

On 29 January 2025, the Constitutional Tribunal delivered its ruling on the constitutional complaints concerning the powers of a competent court official to adjudicate on court-appointed legal representation, district courts’ review of such decisions; the mandatory requirement of professional legal representation in proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that Article 175(1) of the Act of 30 August 2002 on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts is consistent with Article 45(1) in conjunction with Article 176(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. 
As to the remainder, the Tribunal discontinued the proceedings. 
The ruling was adopted by a majority vote. 
There was one dissenting opinion, filed by Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz.

The Tribunal stated that the mandatory requirement of professional legal representation, introduced in Article 175(1) of the Act of 30 August 2002 on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2024, item 935, as amended; hereinafter: the Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts) – i.e. the obligation that a cassation appeal in administrative-court proceedings must be prepared by an attorney[1] – has the character of  a guarantee and is intended for ensuring the effective and efficient filing of a cassation appeal, due to the strict rules for the said appeal, which in turn makes it possible to effectuate the right to a fair trial (Art. 45(1) of the Constitution) and the right to two stages of court proceedings (Art. 176(1) of the Constitution).

The obligation that a cassation appeal must be prepared by an attorney may not be regarded as tantamount to the loss of a litigant’s statutory right to a legal remedy in administrative-court proceedings. The eligible litigant may in no way be deprived of the possibility of filing a cassation appeal. The legislature has merely formulated the requirement of more stringent rules about the qualifications for preparing the said appeal, primarily due to the particularly formalised character of that legal remedy and the scope of the Supreme Administrative Court’s review.

Concurrently, the Tribunal indicated that the introduction of the formal requirement that an attorney must prepare a cassation appeal to be filed with the Supreme Administrative Court neither excessively hinders that preparation process nor deprives the eligible litigant of recourse to the said legal remedy, even with a view to the relevant financial aspect. Indeed, a person who cannot afford the costs of court proceedings may apply for legal aid and court-appointed legal representation (see, inter alia, Art. 243 et seq. of the Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts). The appointment of an attorney by a competent court makes it possible for a litigant in administrative-court proceedings to rely on professional legal aid, without being financially burdened with the payment of the fees and expenses of the attorney.

As a side remark, the Constitutional Tribunal also recalled that the right to a fair trial is not absolute in the sense that the possibility of exercising particular guarantees making up the substance of that right may, to some extent, be restricted – namely, within the limits set forth in Article 31(3) and Article 77(2) of the Constitution. For those reasons, the Constitutional Tribunal indicated in its jurisprudence that the legislature is obliged to balance out the various interests of individuals and of the public at large. What should be stressed is that the legislature may not set excessive limitations to the right to a fair trial, but at the same time it must take into account the justified interests of the public at large in the context of the efficient functioning of courts, or it must introduce indispensable mechanisms for safeguarding the right to a fair trial against any abuses of that right by attempts to assert manifestly unfounded claims in courts.

The adjudicating bench of the Constitutional Tribunal in the case was composed of: Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz – Presiding Judge; Judge Jakub Stelina – Judge Rapporteur; Judge Stanisław Piotrowicz; Judge Rafał Wojciechowski; and Judge Jarosław Wyrembak.