The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Civil Proceedings in Poland

The possibility of conducting a hearing in a remote location already existed prior to the introduction of specific solutions in the Act of 14 May 2020 on amending certain acts in the area of protective measures in connection with the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

Journal of Laws of 2020, item 875, as amended

So far, the possibility of “de-locating” a trial or a public hearing was regulated by the provision of Article 151 § 2 of the CCVP, according to which the presiding judge may order the conduct of a public hearing with the use of technical devices enabling its conduct at a distance. In such a case, the participants of the proceedings may participate in the court session while they are in the building of another court and perform procedural actions there, and the course of procedural actions shall be transmitted from the courtroom of the court conducting the proceedings to the place of stay of the participants of the proceedings and from the place of stay of the participants of the proceedings to the courtroom of the court conducting the proceedings. This provision derogates from the previous rule that court hearings take place in the court building. Outside the court building, hearings are held when court actions must be performed elsewhere or when holding a hearing facilitates the conduct of the case or contributes to saving the costs of the proceedings. The current provisions of the CCVP provide for the possibility to perform certain court actions outside the court building when, for example, it is necessary to hear a person affected by illness or infirmity (in such a case, the hearing takes place in the place where disabled persons reside)

Article 263 CCVP

The provision of Article 151 § 2 of the CCVP, on the other hand, introduces the possibility of holding a public hearing at a distance by means of videoconferencing, upon the order of the chairman. There is no doubt that this provision refers to Article 235 § 2 of the CCVP, which made it possible to take evidence at a distance and was introduced into the CCVP in order to adapt Polish law to Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing European Small Claims Procedures

Official Journal of the EU L No 199, 1

Enabling parties, witnesses, and experts to participate in a public hearing remotely may contribute to the inclusion in the judicial process of those persons who, due to the necessity to appear in court in person, have so far given up on pursuing claims in court. In this way, the barriers causing possible legal exclusion of persons who, due to their state of health or the degree of disability, are deprived of the possibility to participate in the hearing in person are also eliminated

See: A. Klich, Możliwość wykorzystania protokołu elektronicznego i środków komunikacji na odległość na potrzeby postępowania dowodowego w sprawach cywilnych [in:] Informatyzacja postepowania cywilnego. Teoria i praktyka, (eds K. Flagi-Gieruszyńska, J. Gołaczyński, D. Szostek, Warsaw, 2016, p. 89; Ł. Goździaszek, Zasada bezpośredniości i pisemności postępowania dowodowego w świetle nowelizacji Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego z 5 grudnia 2008 r., Warsaw, Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych Nr 2/2010, p. 28

The provision of Article 151 § 2 of the CCVP has not been repealed, but the provision of Article 15zzs1 of the CoronavirusU in the wording established by the Act of 28 May 2021 on the amendment of the Act - CCVP and some other acts in Article 4 has significantly amended the Act of 2 March 2020. At present, therefore, it is still possible to hold a public hearing remotely based on the provision of Article 151 § 2 of the CCVP, and the question arises whether, after the end of the episodic Act and Article 15zzs1 contained therein, the provision of Article 151 § 2 of the CCVP should not be amended so that it is possible for parties and attorneys to participate in a public hearing remotely, but from a place other than the seat of the court. This is because the solution providing for a remote (distant) hearing provided for in Article 15zzs1 of the CCP has proved to be very practical. A return to the existing Article 151 § 2 of the CCP would result in the suspension or significant limitation of remote hearings.

The provision of Article 15zzs1 of the CoronavirusU now stipulates that during the period of an epidemic emergency or epidemic due to COVID-19 and within one year after the last one is cancelled, in cases heard under the provisions of the CCVP, a trial or public hearing shall be held using technical devices that allow them to be held remotely with simultaneous direct transmission of video and audio (remote hearing), except that the persons participating in it, including members of the panel, need not be in the court building. The previous version of this provision provided for the holding of a hearing or public hearing remotely, but the persons participating in it did not have to be in the court building unless the holding of the hearing or public hearing without the use of the above-mentioned devices would not cause an undue risk to the health of the persons participating in it. However, the provision now states that holding a public hearing by videoconference is the rule and should be applied, disregarding the provision of Article 151(2) of the CCP, in the period after the declaration of an epidemic emergency or COVID-19 and one year after their declaration. This view of the remote hearing is also supported by Article 15zzs1(1)(2) of the CoronavirusU, which provides that the holding of a remote hearing may be waived only if the hearing of the case at a trial or public hearing is necessary and their holding in the court building would not cause a risk to the health of the persons participating in them, but the waiver requires the consent of the president. There is, therefore, no doubt that this provision unambiguously indicates that a hearing or public hearing conducted remotely is now a rule that may be waived exceptionally, and additionally with the consent of the president of the court. This principle is also underlined by the power of the chairman to refer a case to a closed hearing for the purpose of hearing the case if a remote hearing cannot be held (e.g. for technical reasons) and a hearing or a public hearing is not necessary. The decision in this respect (i.e. to refer the case to a closed hearing) shall be taken by the chairman. In this case, the legislator does not even provide for the consent of the president of the court to waive the remote hearing. The decision is made by the presiding judge, but it must clearly indicate that it was not possible to hold a remote hearing (e.g. for technical reasons on the part of the court). This is because, if it was not technically possible for a party to participate in the case, it follows from Article 15zzs1(2) of the CoronavirusU that the court is obliged to ensure that the party or person summoned is able to participate in the remote hearing in the court building. This applies if the party or person summoned demonstrates in the application that he or she does not have the technical facilities to participate in the remote hearing outside the court building. In order to ensure participation in a remote hearing in the court building, a party or person summoned to a public hearing should submit an application within five days of the date of the summons. Thus, only technical reasons on the part of the court can actualise the premise of Article 15zzs1(1)(3) of the CoronavirusU, and not technical obstacles on the part of the parties to the proceedings or other persons summoned to the hearing. This circumstance underscores unequivocally that the remote hearing is now a mode of procedure of an essential nature, from which deviations are limited (both the deviation by holding a stationary hearing and the referral of the case to a closed hearing). The consent of the president of the court is also not required here, as previously with regard to the abandonment of the remote hearing. Obviously, such a solution may be deemed contrary to the principle of openness of civil proceedings and the principle of public hearing of cases. This is because it makes it impossible for the parties and their attorneys to participate in a closed session, as they can only submit written statements, but no longer have the opportunity for ordinary interaction during the hearing. It is also important to note that the openness of a court hearing is also manifested in the right to participate as an audience. Indeed, the public at court hearings held without in camera or not in camera have the right to listen to the trial, which also implements the principle of social control over the administration of justice. However, the holding of a hearing in a closed session is only allowed if it is not possible to hold a videoconference and a traditional hearing (public hearing) when there is no risk to the health of those attending. This underlines that it is now the rule to hold hearings and public hearings by videoconference, in the manner set out in Article 15zzs1(1)(1) of the CoronavirusU.

The provision of Article 15zzs1(1)(1) of the CoronavirusU even stipulates that the restriction of simultaneous attendance at the place and time of a trial or public hearing also affects the composition of the judiciary. In the earlier version of this provision (Article 15zzs1(3)), it was the president of the court who could order that the members of the formation, with the exception of the chairman and the clerk of the case, may participate in the sitting by electronic communication, except for the sitting at which the hearing is closed. In the case of a multi-member formation, by order of the president of the court issued pursuant to Article 15zzs1(1)(3) of the CoronavirusU, only the chairperson and the clerk will participate in the trial or public hearing, while the other members of the formation will participate by electronic means of communication. With that said, the term “electronic means of communication” itself is defined in the Act of 18 July 2002 on the provision of services by electronic means. Article 2(55) of the WitnessElektU defines these means as “technical solutions, including ICT devices and cooperating software tools, enabling individual communication at a distance using data transmission between ICT systems, and in particular electronic mail”. It was therefore not necessary for the members of the formation of the court to communicate by means of an ICT system supporting the transmission of video and audio at a distance, but only a simple instant messenger such as Messenger, WhatsApp, email, etc. was sufficient. The solution introduced at the time was to preserve the security of the composition of the judiciary by avoiding participation in a multi-hour trial or public hearing in a small courtroom of multi-member composition. In civil cases, the composition of the judges is usually one person, even in appeal cases (ie in cases where the presiding judge was also the clerk), then the case was heard by one person. The presiding judge and the clerk could proceed at trial or in open session, while the parties and their attorneys participated by videoconference, or, if the court assessed that there was no health risk to those attending the trial, by traditional means.

The provision discussed above has changed. Now, Article 15zzs1(1)(1) of the CoronavirusU clearly indicates that all participants in a trial or remote hearing may participate in it while away from the seat of the court, including the panel of judges. A remote hearing can therefore become “remote” for all its participants, including the judges. There is, however, no information in this amendment as to how judges are to participate in a remote hearing, how they are to rule, how they are to deliberate, how they are to deliberate, and what their access to the case file will be. The answer to these questions may be sought in part in Article 324 § 4 of the CCP, which provides that in proceedings initiated via an ICT system, the judgement may be recorded in the ICT system and affixed with a qualified electronic signature

Ł. Gozdziaszek, in: K. Flaga Gieruszyńska, J. Gołaczyński (eds,.), Law, 140

Another problem in cases where judges decide to participate in the hearing remotely is the lack of access to the case file. As a rule, the file is in the court building, but with the consent of the president of the court, the file may be given, for example, to a judge in order to prepare for the case, so there is a possibility for a judge hearing a case remotely to have the file; however, in the case of multi-member formations, such a solution will no longer be applicable.

As can be seen, the lack of an ICT system for court proceedings currently results in a lack of electronic case files that can be accessed remotely by all participants, whether judges from the panel, parties and their attorneys

The possibility of creating electronic case files is already provided for by Article 53 § 1a–1c of the Act of 27 July 2001, Law on the Common Court System (ie Journal of Laws of 2020, item 2027, as amended)

The official dress of judges and professional attorneys is also an important issue. It seems that in this particular respect, the provision of Par. 84 of the RUSP

Minister of Justice Regulation, 18 June 2019, ‘Rules of Operation of Common Courts’, Dz.U.2022.2514, 2019

The legislator also abandoned the regulation limiting the hearing of the case at a hearing (also remote) (e.g. in cases where the entirety of the evidence proceedings had already taken place) the court could close the hearing and issue the decision in a closed session after taking written positions from the parties or participants in the proceedings. This provision was an important exception to the setting of a hearing or public hearing traditionally (i.e. with the participation of the court, the parties, and their attorneys, and even in the case described therein (the taking of evidence in its entirety) it was not necessary to set a hearing or public hearing by videoconference. The question arose as to whether this provision referred only to the hearing before the court of the first instance, given that in the second instance under the current appellate model (apellatio com beneficio novorum), the appellate court is also the court obliged to hear the case on the merits, obviously within the limits of the charges and appellate motions. The doubts were all the greater because the subsequent provision of Article 15zzs3 of the CoronavirusU provided

Subsequently repealed on 28 May 2021.OJ 2021, item 1090, which came into force on 2 July 2021

From the systematics of the provisions of the Act of 2 March 2020 on special solutions related to the prevention, prevention and combating of COVID-19, other infectious diseases and crisis situations caused by them, it could be concluded that in any case heard according to the provisions of the CCVP (ie both before the court of first instance and before the court of second instance) the court may close the hearing and, after taking the positions of the parties, issue a ruling in the case, provided, of course, that the evidentiary proceedings have already been conducted in their entirety. Therefore, for what purpose did the legislator provide in Article 15zzs3(1) of the CoronavirusU

In the wording established by the Act of 7 March 2020, Journal of Laws of 2020, item 374

It seems that it is indeed a question of distinguishing between situations where the court is hearing the case at the first and second instance. In the second instance, it is still the will of the parties that determines whether the court will be able to hear the appeal in closed session or at a hearing. Such a solution may be questionable, because in proceedings before the court of the first instance, the will of the parties is irrelevant to the possibility of referring the case to a closed session in order to rule on the case, provided, however, that the evidentiary proceedings have been conducted in full.

The principle of the openness of civil proceedings is realised, inter alia, by hearing the case in public. A distinction is made in the doctrine of civil procedure between the principle of internal and external openness of civil proceedings

K. Gajda-Roszczynialska, Zasada jawności w postępowaniu cywilnym, „Iustitia” 2013, nr 1, p. 17; Cieślak Z., “Aksjologiczne podstawy jawności. Perspektywa nauk o administracji [in:] Jawność i jej ograniczenia, t. 2: Podstawy aksjologiczne, red. Z. Cieślak, C.H. Beck, Warsaw, 2012, LEGALIS, ; M. Uliasz, Zasada jawności sądowego postępowania egzekucyjnego w dobie informatyzacji, Warsaw, 2018, p. 164

In order to enable the parties to participate in a remote hearing, the legislator introduced Article 15zzs1(2) of the CoronavirusU, pursuant to which, upon the request of a party or summoned person filed at least five days before the scheduled date of the remote hearing, the court will ensure that he or she can participate in a remote hearing in the court building if the party or summoned person indicates in the request that he or she does not have the technical equipment to participate in a remote hearing outside the court building. Such a solution is necessary to ensure the participation of parties and other persons in court proceedings, in which currently a hearing or public hearing is, as a rule, held remotely.

In the case of proceedings before the court of first and second instance in cases in which the court decides in a multi-member composition, pursuant to Article 15zzs1(1)(4) of the CoronavirusU, the court shall hear cases in a single judge composition. Only the president of the court, if he deems it advisable due to the particular complexity or precedential nature of the case, may order that the case be heard by three judges

A similar regulation is found in Article 47 § 4 of the CCVP

In contrast, the situation is different with regard to full two-way electronic communication with the court. Nowadays, due to the epidemiological threat, courts allow various possibilities for filing pleadings. Some have dedicated secure filing offices, others have dedicated mailboxes and, where it is not possible to submit a letter in person, it is still necessary to visit the post office to send it by registered mail through a designated operator. There are courts that consciously allow the filing of procedurally defective pleadings through various means of electronic communication (eg ePUAP, email, fax, etc.) The fears of the parties and their attorneys of a possible different evaluation of the procedural actions made by the court of second instance are also not insignificant.

The answer to these problems was to be found in the anti-crisis shield 3.0 (i.e. the bill contained in the Sejm print No. 344, of the Ninth Sejm), which allowed electronic communication with the court. Pursuant to Article 15zzu13(1) of this bill

Course of the legislative process <http://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/PrzebiegProc.xsp?nr=344> (accessed 1 June 2023)

The Centre for Research, Studies and Legislation of the National Chamber of Legal Advisers submitted an amendment on e-claims to the Senate. It assumed the introduction of the possibility of optional communication of parties and attorneys by means of electronic communication with the courts

Rojek-Socha, Tarcza 3.0 uchwalona, ale znowu bez e-komunikacji z sądem, <https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/e-doreczenia-usuniete-z-tarczy-antykryzysowej-3,499987> accessed 12 December 2023

Currently, operating successfully in common courts, the Information Portal has great potential both as an IT tool supporting the daily work of attorneys and as an ICT system being an official communication channel with the court

See W. Łukowski, Portalu Informacyjnego Czar, <https://www.rp.pl/opinie-prawne/art8965701-wojciech-lukowski-portalu-informacyjnego-czar> accessed 12 June 2023

Lawyers welcomed with interest this amendment to the CCP to the extent that it introduced electronic exchange of information with common courts. As of 8 September 2016, the provisions that were to allow electronic communication in civil proceedings came into force. Pursuant to Article 20 of ZmKPC of 2015, for a period of three years from the entry into force of this Act

Repealed by the Act of 4 July 2019

With the amendment of 28 May 2021, the provision of Article 15zzs1 introduced a simplified form of electronic service in civil proceedings. Thus, during the period of the state of epidemic emergency or the state of epidemic declared due to COVID-19 and within one year from the revocation of the last of them in the cases listed in Article 15zzs1 of the CoronavirusU, in the first pleading filed by an advocate, legal counsel, patent attorney, or the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Poland, an e-mail address for service and a telephone number shall be provided. Further, during the period indicated in paragraph 1, in the absence of the possibility of using an ICT system serving court proceedings

Article 1311 of the CCVP

The above regulation should be noted positively, as it enables in each civil case the application of the model of service envisaged in Article 1311 § 1 of the CCVP, according to which “the court shall make service by means of an ICT system if the addressee has filed a letter by means of an ICT system or has opted for filing letters by means of this system”. In the discussed regulation of Article 15zzs9 there is, as can be observed, no prerequisite for the use of electronic service, in the form of filing a letter or choosing to file pleadings via an ICT system

Ł. Goździaszek, [in[ “The Law of New Technologies”, (eds) K. Flaga-Gieruszyńska, J. Gołaczyński Warsaw, 2021, p. 146

Finally, a similar solution contained in Article 15zzs9, sentence 3 of the CoronovirusU and with that contained in Article 1311 § 2 of the CCVP is the marking of the date of service of the letter. Thus, in Article 1311 § 2 of the CCVP, in the case of electronic service, the letter is deemed served at the time indicated in the electronic acknowledgement of receipt of the correspondence. The provision of Article 134 § 1 of the CCVP does not apply in the absence of such acknowledgement, and electronic service is deemed to be effective 14 days after the date of posting the letter in the ICT system. On the other hand, the provision of Article 15zzs9(3) of the CoronovirusU clearly indicates that the date of service of a court letter is the date on which the recipient became acquainted with the letter posted on the Information Portal (i.e. the ICT system designed to provide information about the case), and in the absence of acquaintance, the letter is deemed served after the expiry of 14 days from the date on which the letter was posted on the Information Portal. Hence, a doubt arises whether the provision of Article 131(1) of the CCP and the ordinance of the MS on the mode and manner of electronic service issued on its basis should be applied to Article 15zzs9(2) of the CoronovirusU. This is because the provision of Article 1311(2) of the CCVP excludes from its scope of application the provision of Article 134 of the CCVP, which refers to the issue of the possibility to serve at night or on a public holiday, making such a possibility dependent on an order of the president of the court, and only in urgent cases. Such an exemption (ie the application of the provision of Article 134 KPC) is not contained in Article 15zzs9(2) KoronovirusU, which begs the conclusion, that it was not the will of the legislator to allow the service of court letters on professional attorneys through the Information Portal, as in the case of service under Article 13191) of the CCVP. There is also another view, namely, that Article 134 of the CCP does not apply to electronic service through the Information Portal because this provision refers only to traditional service (under Art. 131 of the CCVP) and protects the household mirrors from service precisely at night or on public holidays, and therefore service takes place if the professional representative becomes acquainted with the content of the court letter even on a public holiday, and if the content of the court letter is not directly acquainted, the time limit for the effect of service runs from the day on which the letter was posted on the Information Portal (e.g. even on a public holiday). The only guarantee for the party is that the running of the procedural or judicial time limit cannot end on a public holiday, but on the following first working day.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the provision of Article 1491 of the CCVP, which provides that the court may summon parties, witnesses, experts, or other persons in the manner it considers most expedient, disregarding the methods of service provided for in Chapter 3, Section I, Title VI, Book One of the CCVP, if it considers it necessary to expedite the examination of the case, will still apply. A summons made in this manner shall have effect if it is undoubted that it has reached the addressee within the time limits set out in Article 149 § 2 of the CCVP. This provision also gives the possibility to make a summons by e-mail, telephone, electronic messenger, etc. The provision of Article 15zzs9(1) of the CoronavirusU, which requires an advocate, solicitor, patent agent, or the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Poland to provide his or her e-mail address for service and telephone number in the first pleading filed with the court, will also be helpful here. Obviously, this provision only applies to pleadings filed during a state of emergency or state of the epidemic and for a period of one year after the revocation of one of them.

The concept of a court writ subject to service may also be questionable. Court writs are currently, without doubt:

- court decisions;

However, § 21 of the zarz. MS of 19 June 2019 on the organisation and scope of activities of court secretariats and other court administration departments

Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice of 2019, item 138 as amended

Thus, based on Article 15zzs9(2) of the CoronavirusU, it will be possible to serve only court letters without a signature (i.e. notices and summonses for a public hearing, orders on the return of a letter (statement of claim, application), orders for payment issued in a writ of payment proceedings. and non-appealable orders). Hence, without an amendment to the Clerks’ Manual based on the provision of § 21(4) of OrgSekSądZ, service through the Information Portal may be made only with respect to the above-mentioned court letters, and the others must bear the official seal and the signature of an authorised person.

However, since the scope of the term (court documents include all writings issued by courts of law), it also encompasses judgements, justifications, summonses, notices, etc. Paragraph 68(1) and (2) of OrgSekSądZ provides for a broad definition of court documents, including judgements, justifications, as well as summonses and notices, etc.

Service by the Information Portal should therefore apply to all summonses, notices, and judgements

e.g. orders for payment served on the plaintiff’s attorney

Under these circumstances, there do not appear to be grounds for excluding judgements or justifications from the concept of court letters indicated in the amended Article 15zzs9(2) of the CoronavirusU as being served on the entities indicated therein by the Information Portal. In the absence of an amendment of Annex No. 3 to the OrgSekSądZ indicated in point 1, presidents of district and appellate courts may expand the catalogue of court letters served without signature and official seal, acting on the basis of § 21(6) sentence 2 of the OrgSekSądZ. Ultimately, however, an amendment to the Clerks’ Instructions is necessary. The question also arises as to whether a court letter served by the Information Portal fulfils the prerequisites referred to in Article 53a(1) of PrUSP. Let us recall that the latter provision prejudges the issue of the legal status of a document originating from the court information and communication system, namely, that such a document has the force of a document originating from the court (an official document), but on the condition that its content can be verified in the information and communication system. Is it possible to verify the content of a court document published on the Information Portal, treated as an ICT system? At present, there is no possibility, as in the case of electronic writ of payment proceedings, to verify in the information system serving these proceedings the existence and validity of the payment order issued therein. The verification is also obligatory even for the court bailiff, prior to the initiation of enforcement proceedings in order to satisfy a debt established by an order for payment, but the party itself, having only the so-called verification printout, may verify at the court bailiff or court whether the order for payment actually exists. Such a procedure does not exist in the case of the Information Portal and therefore the obvious question arises as to whether service of the court writ itself or only the content of the writ is effected through the Information Portal. If it is considered that service is effected by reading the content of the court letter, then the provision of Article 53 a(1) PrUSP will not apply.

W wyniku nowelizacji ustawy z dnia 28 maja 2021 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego oraz niektórych innych ustaw (ZmKoronawirusU), ustawodawca zdecydował się na szerokie możliwości uczestnictwa w procesie sądowym za pomocą wideokonferencji. Zgodnie z art. 15zzs1 ZmKoronawirusU, w okresie stanu zagrożenia epidemicznego lub stanu epidemii ogłoszonej z powodu COVID-19 oraz przez rok od odwołania ostatniego z nich, w sprawach rozpoznawanych zgodnie z przepisami Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego lub przewidzianej rozprawy publicznej może odbywać się za pomocą urządzeń technicznych umożliwiających prowadzenie ich zdalnie, przy jednoczesnej bezpośredniej transmisji wideo i dźwięku, z tym zastrzeżeniem, że osoby w nich uczestniczące, w tym członkowie składu orzekającego, nie muszą być obecne w budynku sądu. Wyjątkowo dopuszczono możliwość zrzeczenia się przeprowadzenia rozprawy zdalnej lub rozprawy publicznej, jeżeli przeprowadzenie rozprawy w trybie rozprawy lub rozprawy publicznej jest niezbędne i nie zagraża zdrowiu osób w niej uczestniczących oraz prezes sądu wyrazi na to zgodę. Bardzo ważne jest tutaj, że dotychczasowe rozumienie rozprawy na odległość, które dotychczas wymagało obecności jej uczestników w budynku sądu, zostało zmienione. Zgodnie z art. 15zzs1 ZmKoronawirusU, uczestnicy rozprawy na odległość nie muszą być w sądzie i mogą uczestniczyć w rozprawie zdalnie za pomocą prywatnego komputera.

Jednocześnie ustawodawca wprowadził elektroniczną doręczanie, za pomocą systemu teleinformatycznego, poprzez który sąd będzie doręczał pisma sądowe adwokatom, radcom prawnym, rzecznikom patentowym lub Prokuraturze Generalnej Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. W ramach wyjątku, tej formy doręczeń można nie stosować. Elektroniczne doręczenia nie będą stosowane wobec stron postępowań działających samodzielnie.