A Gloss for the Judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal of November 10, 2009, File Ref. No. P88/08

Abstract

The presented gloss, addressing the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal, file ref. no. P88/08, issued on November 10, 2009, concerning the decision under art. 28 para. 1 of the act of 28 February 2003 (Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Law) [referred to as BRL] as regards the debtor who is not using an advocate or legal counsel, demonstrates inconsistency of art. 28 para. 1 of the above law with art. 45 and art. 32 para. 1 of the Constitution. The Speaker of the Sejm, Public Prosecutor General and the Research and Analysis Bureau have presented their positions approving the compliance of art. 28 para. 1 BRL with art. 32 para. 1 and art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal draws attention to numerous formal requirements, especially concerning the bankruptcy petition filed by the debtor. The Tribunal argues that the right to trial may be infringed not only directly, but also indirectly as a result of the procedural requirements being formed by the legislator in the manner which makes the initiation of the proceedings excessively difficult. Subsequently, the Tribunal points out that excessive strictness connected with considerable formalism of petitions for bankruptcy does not fulfil a compensatory function, and does not satisfactorily protect the debtor and his undertaking. 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 drew 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 art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. As regards art. 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 judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal, a separate statement was made in the part concerning the compliance of art. 28 BRL with art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. The presented gloss shares the argumentation observed by the Constitutional Tribunal, at the same time considering 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.