•  
  •  
 

Keywords

service of correspondence, postal activity, postal operator, freedom of economic activity, document of confirmation of receipt – receipt of delivery, document of confirmation of submission, proper delivery, substitute service, notification, posting correspondence to courts and public administration institutions

Abstract

The article discusses selected issues relevant to the sending (exclusively via postal operators) and serving correspondence from courts and other public institutions (official correspondence), as well as the posting of correspondence to courts and public institutions. While courts and public institutions are entirely free to choose which postal operator they use, procedural parties have full freedom of choice of postal operators only in criminal procedures. In other cases, parties have to send correspondence to courts or public institutions via the designated operator only, in order to ensure that the legally imposed time limit is observed. Such solution raises concerns, also about its consistency with the Constitution. The article considers also the difference between proof of posting and proof of receipt of a postal item and refers to general regulations on delivery provided for in the Postal law and in the executive act which is solely addressed to the designated operator. Pointed out are also differences i.a. between an intended delivery (to the person and at the address specifi ed on the postal item), a substitute service and a notifi cation in relation with delivery in particular proceedings, which in the author’s opinion need to be harmonized. Other rules providing an incoherent monopoly for the designated public operator must also be amended (e.g. Art. 17 of the Postal Law).

First Page

57

Last Page

72

Page Count

15

Publisher

University of Warsaw

Download

Share

COinS