2013 October

Resolution of 10 October 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 54/13)

1. Is the void is a promissory note issued by a legal person, if the designation of the person indicated on the bill there is no indication of its organizational form, but is given the court registry number (KRS)?

2. Have a valid promissory note issued by a legal person, if the designation of the name given to a bill of exchange is a postscript indicating the type of economic activity, which, according to an entry in the National Court Register, the company is not part of the legal person?

It is not valid promissory note issued by a legal person determined without determining its legal form, but quoting the National Court Register,
and a promissory note indicating the economic activity of the issuer, which is not part of his company.

Resolution of 10 October 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 61/13)

Whether on the basis of Art. 394 [2] § 1 k.p.c. entitled to appeal the decision of the court of second instance, concerning the judgment for costs zażaleniowego?

The court's decision on appeal on the judgment for costs zażaleniowego not be appealed against.

Resolution of 10 October 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 62/13)

Is the order of the Court of first instance proceedings against a judgment recognizing the clerk of the court on the basis of Art. 398 [23] k.p.c. subject to the provisions of Rule. 380 in conjunction. with Art. 397 § 2 k.p.c. as a judgment from which the appeal is not entitled to?

Decision issued as a result of examining the appeal against a decision of the clerk of the court can not be examined on the basis of Art. 380 in conjunction with Art. 397 § 2 k.p.c.

Resolution of 18 October 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 64/13)

 

Is it possible to fall protection granted on the basis of Art. 754 [1] of the Code, before the date on which the validity of the judgment can be determined taking into account a claim that is hedged?

The collapse of a monetary claim protection following the date specified in Art. 754 [1] Code of Civil Procedure, counted from the decree to take account of this claim, unless the Court decides otherwise.

Composition of 7 judges Resolution of 29 October 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 50/13)

Is the claim to the Insurance Guarantee Fund for damages in circumstances justifying the liability of the holder of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle driver, and their identity has not been established (Art. 98 paragraph. 1 point 1 and 2 of the Act of 22 May 2003. On compulsory insurance , Insurance Guarantee Fund and Polish Motor Insurers' Bureau, Dz. U. of 2013. pos. 392), may be subject to a limitation period referred to in Art. 442 [1] § 2 of the Civil Code?

The claim of the victim for damages, resulting from the crime or misdemeanor, caused in circumstances justifying the liability of the holder of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle driver, whose identity has not been established (Art. 98 paragraph. 1, points 1 and 2 in conjunction with Art. 109a of the Act of May 22, 2003.
on compulsory insurance, Insurance Guarantee Fund and Polish Motor Insurers' Bureau, one. text: Journal of Laws from 2013., pos. 392 as amended.), Barred on the basis of Art. 442 [1] § 2 of the Civil Code


Kancelaria Prawna 90-060 Łódź, ul. Nawrot 4/1, tel./fax +48 /42/ 630 58 41, tel. +48 /42/ 632 51 44, kancelaria@b2blegal.pl
OK
Korzystanie z tej witryny oznacza wyrażenie zgody na wykorzystanie plików cookies. Więcej informacji możesz znaleźć w naszej Polityce Prywatności.