Service of documents in case of appointing an attorney-in-fact

From the moment of appointing an attorney-in-fact the party acts through him with full legal consequence. Therefore, also all documents are served upon the attorney-in-fact, not the party. Clause 40 §2 of the CAP does not allow for any exceptions, and obliges administrative authorities conducting the proceedings to serve all documents (decisions and provisions) upon the attorney-in-fact appointed for the case.

This is something to be remembered because administrative practice differs (e.g. documents are served upon both the attorney-in-fact and the party). A successful service of a document is of great relevance because, for example, the time for filing in an appeal measure against a decision is counted from the day of service. There is no clause in the CAP which would be a legal foundation for the service of documents directly upon the party represented.

Admittedly, it is not prohibited but a simultaneous service of documents upon the party and the attorney-in-fact means only that the party is being informed about the contents of the document. Legal consequences related to the service (so for example, the beginning of the flow of time left to file in an appeal measure against a decision) arise only when the document has been served upon the attorney-in-fact.

If the party appointed several attorneys-in-fact, one of them has to be indicated as authorised to receive documents. This choice is made by the party. If it fails to do so, the authority proceeding in case shall choose in their place.

A party residing abroad is obliged to designate an attorney-in-fact for service in the country unless service shall be effected by means of electronic communication. Such an attorney-in-fact is only authorised to receive documents addressed to the party and not to take any other action in the proceedings.

If the above mentioned attorney-in-fact for service was not appointed or a document was not received it shall be stored in the case files with effect of service, however with a provision that the party should be informed about it.

The party should also be instructed about, among other things, who may be appointed as attorney-in-fact. The authority has to give such instruction with the first service. This means, that the first letter addressed to the party has to be sent abroad and delivered to them personally, according to the regulations on the serving of documents to persons residing abroad.

Therefore, if in the first document served upon the party the authority fails to instruct the party to designate an attorney-in-fact for the service, or if the first document in the case is not sent to the party’s foreign address, then the authority has no right to use the legal discipline of “storing in the case files with effect of service” (40 § 4 and 5 CAP).