Relacja zwierzchnictwa jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności podmiotów kościelnych za szkody wyrządzone z winy duchownych – perspektywa prawnokanoniczna. Glosa do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 6 września 2022 r., II CSKP 466/22
The relationship of superiority as a basis for the liability of church entities for damage caused by the fault of clergyman – a canon law perspective. Case commentary on the judgement of the Polish Supreme Court of 6 September 2022, II CSKP 466/22

Summary/Abstract: In the commented judgement, the Supreme Court held that superiors within the meaning of Article 430 of the Polish Civil Code, in relation to a parochial vicar, include the parish priest, the parish, the bishop, and the diocese. The judgement should be regarded as controversial for several reasons. First, a special legal status was attributed to claims for damages arising from a clergyman’s sexual act against a minor. The adjudicating panel considered it justified to reject the defence of limitation of such a claim by applying the doctrine of abuse of rights under Article 5 of the Civil Code. Moreover, serious doubts are raised by the broad interpretation of the condition of damage caused by a subordinate “in the performance of an entrusted activity” (Article 430 of the Civil Code). However, the commentary primarily addresses the issue of the Polish court’s reference to the provisions of the Code of Canon Law in order to determine whether, under the facts of the case, the four ecclesiastical entities listed above could be considered superiors (in the civil law sense) of the parochial vicar. Without establishing the condition of superiority, none of these entities could be held liable for damages under Article 430 of the Civil Code. Since only the parish and the diocese were named as defendants in the proceedings, only these two entities were ultimately ordered by the judgement to pay compensation to the claimant. The commentary is critical of the court’s interpretation concerning the relationship between the parish priest, the parish, and the diocese in relation to the parochial vicar. It is demonstrated that it is difficult to attribute the civil-law status of superior to the parish priest, as in relation to the vicar he acts rather as a collaborator (albeit with broader competences) than as a superior. Consequently, the parish in which the vicar serves cannot be regarded as his superior – if only because the parish authority itself (the parish priest) is not the vicar’s superior. However, under the provisions of the Code of Canon Law, it is possible to treat the diocesan bishop as the superior of the subordinate vicar. The bishop entrusts the vicar with activities to perform, and the vicar remains subject to the bishop’s direction to a certain extent during the performance of such activities. Nevertheless, in order to establish the bishop’s liability under Article 430 of the Civil Code, it is necessary to determine the fulfilment of further conditions provided for in that article, particularly whether the damage was caused “in the performance” of the entrusted activity. The liability of the diocese under Article 430 of the Civil Code must, however, be excluded. The Supreme Court erroneously held that every act of the bishop is simultaneously performed within the scope of representation of the diocese, of which the bishop is an organ. The managerial actions of the bishop towards the parochial vicar should be regarded as the bishop’s own acts, and therefore it is the bishop himself – and not the diocese – who should be attributed with the status of superior.

• Details
• Contents