This was an agreement concluded in 2014 by a consortium of four companies with the State Treasury. This contract concerned the construction and operation of an electronic monitoring system. The problem was that the contract provided for the operation of the system in accordance with the Law on the Execution of Prison Sentences Outside Prison within the Framework of the Electronic Monitoring System in force at the time of its conclusion. However, in 2015, this law was repealed and the principles of electronic monitoring were introduced into the Executive Criminal Code. The result was also a significant decrease in the number of convicts subject to electronic monitoring, which made it unprofitable to execute the contract under the originally agreed terms. In this situation, two companies in the consortium, after negotiations with the Ministry of Justice failed, decided to take legal action to establish new contractual terms.
The trial court found that both companies did not have standing to file the lawsuit, since the lawsuit should be filed by the entire consortium. The other members were initially not interested in the matter. However, once the complaint was filed, in accordance with art. 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they were summoned to participate in the proceedings. Their statements were submitted to the court after the 14-day period provided for in art. 195 para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the court concluded that the other two companies were not parties to the lawsuit.
The appeal ruling was similar to the first instance ruling. Although the other two companies also filed appeals, these were rejected by the second instance court because they were filed by entities that were not parties to the proceedings. In the end, the appeal in cassation of the two companies that filed the original action was upheld. At the same time, the Supreme Court concluded that the entire process had to be repeated again and annulled both the appeal and first instance rulings.
