Nad fikcí výpovědi (odvolání) plné moci a restrikcí počtu zmocněnců v civilním procesu

LAVICKÝ, Petr. Nad fikcí výpovědi (odvolání) plné moci a restrikcí počtu zmocněnců v civilním procesu (About the fiction of withdrawal from a power of attorney and restriction of number of representatives in civil procedure). Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi. Brno: Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, 2009, vol. 2009, No 2, p. 91-96. ISSN 1210-9126.

Basic information

• Original name: Nad fikcí výpovědi (odvolání) plné moci a restrikcí počtu zmocněnců v civilním procesu
• Name (in English): About the fiction of withdrawal from a power of attorney and restriction of number of representatives in civil procedure
• Authors: LAVICKÝ, Petr (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution).
• Edition: Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, Brno, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, 2009, 1210-9126.

Other information

• Original language: Czech
• Type of outcome: Article in a journal
• Field of Study: 50501 Law
• Country of publisher: Czech Republic
• Confidentiality degree: is not subject to a state or trade secret
• RIV identification code: RIV/00216224:14220/09:00107026
• Organization unit: Faculty of Law
• Keywords (in Czech): plná moc; zastoupení v civilním procesu; fikce
• Keywords in English: power of attorney; representation in civil procedure; fiction
• Tags: Fiction, power of attorney, representation in civil procedure, rivok
• Tags: Reviewed

Abstract

Článek se zabývá rozborem § 28 odst. 3 a § 24 odst. 1 OSŘ. Dospívá k závěru, že omezení počtu zmocněnců v civilním procesu na jediného představuje nepřípustný zásah do práva na právní pomoc, garantovanou čl. 37 odst. 2 Listiny základních práv a svobod. Toto právo není účastníku upřeno zcela, avšak podstatně jej omezuje, přestože k dosažení téhož cíle (hospodárnosti) lze užít i prostředků mírnějších.

Abstract (in English)

According to § 24 par. 1 and § 28 par. 3 of the Civil Procedural Code (CPC) can each party be simultaneously represented only by one elected representative; if a party, which already has a representative, elects another one, then CPC stipulates that this party withdraws from a present power of attorney. This article deals with both provisions and concludes that § 28 par. 3 is a legal fiction, because a party did not withdraw from a present power of attorney; it only elected a new representative. At the same time it is not possible to treat election of a new representative as an intention to finish existing representation by another representative; we can as well say that a party wants to be represented by both representatives. Therefore the article explores reasons for restriction of number of elected representatives in the Czech civil procedure. The reason is according to some older literature the principle of a (procedural) economy; it probably contains effort to avoid problems with servicing of documents to several representatives and to beware of situations, when a procedural act of one representative is in contrariety to a procedural act of another representative of the same party. This aim is legitimate, but there exists least restrictive means to reach it (a party may be obliged to choose one representative for receiving documents or service of a document to only one representative may be sufficient; contradictory acts can a court deliberate within his discretionary powers etc.). Hence the restriction of number of representatives under § 24 par. 1 CPC fails in the test of proportionality.