The Supreme Court Clarified the Rules on Notifying Non-Residents of an Appeal

The panel of judges of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court considered a case concerning the standards of proof required to confirm that an appeal has been sent to a foreign party to the proceedings. The key legal issue arose from a conflict between procedural code requirements to provide a “list of enclosures” and the practical limitations of international postal services. In addition, the Court addressed whether printouts of email correspondence could be used as a substitute for official postal delivery.

The previous approach was often based on strict formalism, where appeals were returned due to the absence of a physical list of enclosures, even in situations where such a document was technically impossible to obtain in international mailings. At the same time, another strand of case law allowed a broad interpretation of “electronic evidence,” which created an impression that ordinary email or messenger communication could replace postal delivery entirely. Such divergent interpretations of procedural rules created barriers to access to justice and legal uncertainty for practitioners.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court established a balanced approach between the obligation of a party to notify the opposing side and the technical rules governing postal operators. The Court distinguished electronic correspondence as evidence in commercial relations from its use as a procedural instrument. The new position clearly defines which documents constitute valid proof of sending an appeal abroad and whether screenshots can be accepted as evidence by the court.