“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” Sun Tzu wrote, some twenty-five centuries ago. In Polish civil procedure, the cassation appeal represents precisely this kind of ultimate weapon—a tool designed not for battling over facts but for contesting the pure interpretation of law. It is a duel of arguments, and victory belongs to whoever best comprehends the logic of the legal system itself.
An Extraordinary Weapon, Not a Universal One
The cassation appeal is not a third instance of adjudication—and whoever treats it as such has already lost before the battle begins. It is an extraordinary remedy, created not to correct every judicial error but to protect the coherence of the entire legal order.
“He who defends everything defends nothing,” Frederick the Great was fond of saying. Poland’s Supreme Court understands this maxim intimately. The institution of the preliminary examination—the przedsąd, as it is known—functions as a strategic filter: only those cases that present a significant legal question, require interpretation of provisions that have generated serious doubts, or concern manifestly defective rulings proceed to substantive review.
When the Cassation Appeal Makes Sense
A final judgment of the appellate court that concludes the proceedings. A decision dismissing the complaint. A decision discontinuing the proceedings. This is a closed catalogue, and no amount of procedural creativity will expand it.
But note: the mere existence of a ruling is only the beginning. Clausewitz wrote that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” By analogy, the cassation appeal is the continuation of litigation strategy by other means. It demands, however, a fundamental shift in perspective: we cease asking “What happened?” and begin asking “How should the law be understood?”
The Supreme Court does not weigh evidence, does not assess the credibility of witnesses, does not reconstruct the factual record. It takes the facts as established by the appellate court as given and examines solely whether the law was correctly applied.
Gravamen—Without a Wound, There Is No Appeal
“Being aggrieved by a ruling is a prerequisite for the admissibility of a remedy,” the Supreme Court held in a seven-judge resolution in 2014. This is the principle of gravamen: you must demonstrate that the ruling objectively harms you. Theoretical musings about judicial errors that have no bearing on your legal situation will not open the doors to the Palace of Justice on Krasiński Square.
The exception? Entities acting in the public interest—the Prosecutor General, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Ombudsman for Children. For them, gravamen does not exist, because they fight not for their own interest but for the interest of the administration of justice.
Racing Against Time and Other Remedies
The cassation appeal, the petition to reopen proceedings, the complaint for a declaration that a final ruling is inconsistent with the law—these three instruments form a system of communicating vessels. Filing a cassation appeal does not suspend the deadline for the petition to reopen. But when both are filed simultaneously, the cassation takes precedence.
“Time is everything”—a principle as valid in litigation as on the battlefield. The two-month deadline from service of the ruling with its written grounds is immovable. Mandatory representation by an advocate or legal counsel is absolute. The filing fee equals the full amount prescribed for the initial complaint.
The Value of the Subject Matter in Dispute—The Entry Threshold
Fifty thousand złoty in cases involving property rights. This is no arbitrary boundary; it is a deliberate legislative decision to ensure that the Supreme Court concerns itself with matters of genuine econom