A Gloss on Verdict P88/08 issued on 10th November 2009 by the Constitutional Tribunal

Abstract

The presented gloss refers to Verdict, P88/08, issued on 10th November 2009 by the Constitutional Tribunal concerning the decision under Article 28 Section 1 of the Act of 28th February 2003 – Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Law [referred to as BRL] as regards the debtor who is not using a solicitor  or legal counsel, it indicates inconsistency of Article 28 Section 1 of the above Act with Article 45 of the Polish Constitution  and no inconsistency with Article 32 Section 1 of the Constitution. The Speaker of the Sejm, the Prosecutor General and the Research and Analysis Bureau have presented the position approving the compliance of Article 28 Section 1 of BRL with Article 32 Section 1 and Article 45 Section 1 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal draws attention to numerous formal requirements, especially concerning the bankruptcy petition filed by the debtor. The Tribunal states that the right to court may be infringed not only directly, but also indirectly as a result of the procedural requirements being formed by the legislator in the way making the initiation of the proceedings excessively difficult. Subsequently, the Tribunal points out that excessive strictness connected with considerable formalization of the bankruptcy petition does not perform the compensation function, and does not satisfactorily protect the debtor and his enterprise. In the context of professional representatives, the Tribunal expresses its position on the professional skills that assure  professional legal service in court proceedings. The Constitutional Tribunal made a distinction between debtors having a professional representative and debtors acting on their own, by defining a relevant feature that allows to separate a group, as a consequence the provision in question does not fulfil the constitutional requirements in Article 45 Section 1 of the Constitution. As regards Article 32 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal presents the view that with considerable complexity and strictness connected with the lack of representation, in a concrete case the constitutionally guaranteed rights may be infringed. As part of the verdict of the Constitutional Tribunal a separate statement was made in the part concerning the compliance of article 28 of BRL with Article 45 Section 1 of the Constitution. The present gloss shares the argumentation observed by the Constitutional Tribunal, at the same time paying attention to the public interest, negative results of the late submission of the bankruptcy petition, pointing to the legislator that greater protection of entrepreneurs debtors may be considered.