The Legal Significance of PESEL Number Requirements in Administrative Court Proceedings
The Supreme Administrative Court’s (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, hereinafter “NSA”) decision of September 2, 2025, in case II FZ 65/25, constitutes a significant judicial pronouncement on the stringency of formal requirements in Polish administrative court proceedings, particularly regarding the mandatory inclusion of PESEL numbers in complaints filed by natural persons. This decision not only exemplifies the judiciary’s increasingly rigorous approach to procedural compliance but also reaffirms and develops the foundational precedent established in the NSA’s landmark resolution II GPS 3/22 of July 3, 2023.
The case presents a paradigmatic illustration of how seemingly technical procedural requirements can determine the fate of substantive legal claims, raising fundamental questions about the balance between procedural formalism and access to justice in administrative litigation.
Factual Background and Procedural History
The underlying dispute arose from a complaint challenging a decision by the Head of the Customs and Tax Office regarding personal income tax for the 2014 tax year. Following standard procedural protocol, the Provincial Administrative Court in Kraków (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie) issued a directive requiring the complainant’s counsel to remedy formal deficiencies in the complaint, specifically mandating the submission of proper power of attorney documentation, provision of the party’s PESEL number, and payment of the requisite court fee.
While the complainant’s counsel demonstrated partial diligence within the prescribed seven-day deadline – submitting an authenticated copy of the power of attorney and proof of fee payment – the critical omission of the PESEL number proved fatal. The counsel’s subsequent attempt to remedy this deficiency four days after the statutory deadline had expired resulted in the complaint’s dismissal by the Provincial Administrative Court, a decision that would ultimately be upheld by the NSA.
The Statutory Framework and Its Interpretation
The legal foundation for this decision rests primarily upon the provisions of the Act of August 30, 2002 – the Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts (Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi). Article 46 § 2 point 1 letter b) of this statute unambiguously mandates that initial pleadings must contain the PESEL number of any natural person party who is either obligated to possess such a number or possesses one without legal obligation.
This provision, when read in conjunction with Article 57 § 1, which stipulates that complaints must satisfy the formal requirements for pleadings in judicial proceedings, and Articles 58 § 1 point 3 and § 3, which provide for complaint dismissal upon failure to remedy formal deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe, creates a comprehensive and ostensibly inflexible procedural framework.
The NSA’s Doctrinal Analysis
Categorical Nature of PESEL Requirements
The NSA’s decision categorically confirms that the omission of a PESEL number constitutes a formal deficiency subject to mandatory remediation. Significantly, the Court emphasized that the statutory scheme provides no exceptions to this requirement nor alternative means of party identification. This interpretation reflects a notably formalistic approach to procedural compliance, prioritizing systematic uniformity over substantive considerations.
Rejection of Alternative Identification Methods
Perhaps most notably, the NSA explicitly rejected the complainant’s argument that a tax identification number (NIP) could serve as an adequate substitute for PESEL identification. The Court clarified that while NIP numbers may possess supplementary value in matters relating to business activities, they cannot under any circumstances replace PESEL numbers for the purpose of identifying parties filing complaints – particularly first pleadings – in administrative court proceedings.
This holding demonstrates the Court’s unwillingness to engage in functional equivalency analysis when confronted with explicit statutory mandates, suggesting a jurisprudential philosophy that privileges textual literalism over purposive interpretation.
Contextual Significance and Precedential Value
Relationship to Resolution II GPS 3/22
The decision gains particular significance when viewed against the backdrop of the NSA’s earlier resolution II GPS 3/22 of July 3, 2023, which definitively established that failure to comply with the PESEL requirement constitutes a formal deficiency requiring remediation regardless of whether such information is available in administrative files possessed by the court. This precedent serves crucial systemic functions: it eliminates the possibility of invoking data from other proceedings, underscores the autonomy of individual proceedings, and places the burden of procedural diligence squarely upon the parties themselves.
The resolution’s underlying principle – that courts are not obligated to verify party data from unrelated case files – reflects broader concerns about judicial efficiency and the appropriate allocation of procedural responsibilities between courts and litigants.
Service of Process Considerations
The decision also addresses significant questions regarding judicial service of process. When the complainant argued that he had not received separate notice regarding the PESEL requirement, claiming to have received only a fee payment directive, the NSA rejected this contention based on the return receipt documentation in the case file. The Court noted that the receipt clearly indicated that the mailing contained multiple documents: the fee payment directive, the formal deficiency notice, and a copy of the responsive pleading.
This aspect of the decision reinforces the presumptive validity of properly completed postal receipts as official documents under Article 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while simultaneously establishing heightened standards for professional counsel regarding correspondence management.
Professional Standards for Legal Counsel
The NSA adopted a particularly critical stance regarding the professional obligations of legal representatives. The Court held that professional counsel, bound by duties of due diligence in case management, must organize their office correspondence systems to ensure that individuals receiving mail understand the nature of deliveries as indicated on return receipts and subsequently verify the contents of such deliveries. This holding reflects evolving expectations regarding professional standards in judicial proceedings and places increased responsibility on attorneys for systematic office management practices.
Constitutional and Systemic Considerations
Judicial Independence and Composition Challenges
The decision includes an extensive discussion of challenges to judicial composition based on the participation of judges appointed upon recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa) restructured pursuant to the December 8, 2017 legislative amendments. The NSA reaffirmed its established position that mere participation in judicial appointment procedures conducted by the restructured Council does not ipso facto invalidate proceedings.
The Court emphasized the necessity of case-specific (ad casum) examination of judicial independence and impartiality, noting that the complainant had presented no concrete circumstances relating to the actual independence or impartiality of the reporting judge beyond general procedural objections.
Systemic Implications for Administrative Litigation
The practical consequences of this decision for administrative litigation practice are substantial and multifaceted. For legal counsel, the ruling mandates heightened attention to initial pleading preparation, requiring inclusion of all statutorily mandated elements and implementation of office management systems ensuring adequate correspondence oversight.
For complainants, the decision underscores the absolute nature of procedural deadlines and the invariable characterization of PESEL omissions as formal deficiencies, regardless of alternative identifying information available to the court. The consequence of non-compliance remains complaint dismissal in accordance with statutory mandates.
Analytical Assessment and Broader Implications
Ratio Legis of PESEL Requirements
The underlying rationale for PESEL requirements encompasses several complementary objectives: unambiguous party identification, prevention of personal identification errors particularly in cases involving individuals with similar personal data, facilitation of judicial administration, and enhancement of legal certainty through elimination of identity-related ambiguities.
From a systemic perspective, one might question the proportionality of such rigorous formalistic approaches, particularly where party identity remains uncontested. However, uniform application of procedural requirements arguably serves essential functions: ensuring equality before the law, enhancing procedural predictability, limiting judicial discretion, and protecting against discrimination claims.
Formalism Versus Substantive Justice
The decision exemplifies an increasingly pronounced trend in Polish administrative court jurisprudence toward stringent procedural compliance. While such an approach may appear excessively formalistic, it arguably serves fundamental judicial administration principles and ensures uniform standards for all proceeding participants.
This jurisprudential direction, though potentially controversial from an access-to-justice perspective, contributes to the development of a coherent and uniform administrative litigation system wherein all parties operate under identical, clearly defined procedural rules.
Conclusion
NSA decision II FZ 65/25 represents a significant reaffirmation of procedural formalism in Polish administrative litigation, establishing clear parameters for PESEL number requirements while addressing broader questions of judicial composition and professional responsibility. The decision serves as a crucial reference point for all participants in administrative court proceedings, emphasizing the fundamental importance of precise procedural compliance as the foundation for effective rights enforcement in judicial proceedings.
Within the broader jurisprudential context, this decision contributes to a body of precedent emphasizing legal certainty and predictability in judicial determinations. While potentially raising concerns.
Founder and Managing Partner of Skarbiec Law Firm, recognized by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna as one of the best tax advisory firms in Poland (2023, 2024). Legal advisor with 19 years of experience, serving Forbes-listed entrepreneurs and innovative start-ups. One of the most frequently quoted experts on commercial and tax law in the Polish media, regularly publishing in Rzeczpospolita, Gazeta Wyborcza, and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Author of the publication “AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto. Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator” and co-author of the award-winning book “Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy” (Security of a Modern Company). LinkedIn profile: 18 500 followers, 4 million views per year. Awards: 4-time winner of the European Medal, Golden Statuette of the Polish Business Leader, title of “International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.” He specializes in strategic legal consulting, tax planning, and crisis management for business.
