Unproven substitute service cannot start cure period, NSA rules

The Supreme Administrative Court set aside a rejection of a complaintNSA where the summons to cure a formal defect was never shown to have been effectively servedNSA.

The Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu had rejected the complaint against the Director of the Izba Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu concerning refusal to discontinue enforcement proceedings, because the complaint lacked a handwritten signatureNSA. It treated a summons to sign and return the complaint as served by substitution after two unsuccessful delivery attemptsNSA, deemed service complete, and held that the period to cure the defect expired without effectNSA.

The Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, by order of 4 November 2026 in case I GZ 399/26, held the zażalenie well-foundedNSA and quashed the order of 20 August 2026 in case III SA/Wr 283/26NSA, remitting the case to the first-instance court for a fresh summonsNSA.

A party who corresponds by email is not automatically entitled to electronic service of court letters. Service is effected through the post, court staff or other persons or bodies authorised by the court, and a letter may also be served by fax or electronic mail. The court held that choosing postal delivery for the presiding judge order was not itself a breach, because electronic service remains optional for the court even where a party indicates an email address and consents to it; this complainant had sent filings electronically but had never requested service in the manner prescribed for electronic delivery.

The decisive point was whether substitute service of the summons was effectiveNSA. Where direct delivery proves impossible, the letter is deposited and a notice of its deposit, with collection information, is left for the addressee, and service is deemed complete only when that procedure is properly documentedNSA. Here the return receipt returned with the uncollected item did not show where the arrival notice had been left, in which postal facility the letter could be collected, on which day the notice had been placed, or whether it had been put in the mailbox, on the flat door or at another designated service addressNSA. The form simultaneously marked the box for non-delivery for other reasons and bore a stamp for return after expiry of the collection periodNSA. The court held that gaps of that kind prevent any presumption about which signatures and stamps prove which factsNSA, and that annotations on the envelope alone did not establish proper service under the prescribed procedureNSA.

Because effective service of the summons to cure the formal defect could not be establishedNSA, the time limit for curing it never began to runNSA and its alleged expiry could not support rejection of the complaintNSA.

For practitioners, the ruling confirms that limitation and rejection clocks that depend on substituted service stand or fall on the completeness of the return receipt: an incomplete receipt with contradictory markings does not carry deemed serviceNSA, and a court may not fill the gaps by assumptionNSA. Parties who want court correspondence by email should file an express request for electronic service rather than relying on having sent pleadings electronically or having named an address.

Legal basis: art. 65, art. 73, art. 185 section 1 in conjunction with art. 197 section 2 of the ustawa z dnia 30 sierpnia 2002 r. - Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi, with service details under the rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dnia 12 października 2010 r. w sprawie szczegółowego trybu i sposobu doręczania pism sądowych w postępowaniu cywilnym.