An authorised representative lodges an appeal using a two-year-old general power of attorney. The Court of Appeal requests a recent power of attorney. The authorised representative refuses to provide this and the appeal is subsequently declared inadmissible. The Supreme Court ruled that the administrative court may always request a recent authorisation. It does not need to have any indication that the previous power of attorney has expired. In doing so, the Supreme Court has reversed a 2013 judgment.
Continuing power of attorney dated 2022
A ‘no-cure-no-pay’ agency is lodging an appeal against a WOZ decision for 2022. Along with the notice of appeal, the agency submits a power of attorney dated 28 February 2022. That power of attorney is worded in general terms. The interested party authorises the firm’s staff to represent him in ‘all matters concerning the local tax assessment and the WOZ decision(s) stated therein’. The Court of Appeal has doubts as to whether the agency is authorised to represent the interested party. The Court bases these doubts on the time that has elapsed since the authorisation was issued and on its general nature.
Incorrect authorisation submitted
The court has requested a recent authorisation. The agency is given two opportunities to provide this. It eventually sends an authorisation dated 18 March 2024. Although this is recent, it relates to the 2024 WOZ decision, whereas the dispute concerns the 2022 WOZ decision. The Court of Appeal declares the appeal inadmissible. The agency lodges an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court reverses earlier ruling
The Supreme Court has ruled that the administrative court may impose conditions on the power of attorney. It may request a recent power of attorney. It may also request a power of attorney dated after the contested judgment or one that specifically relates to the proceedings before that court. This does not require the court to have evidence that the previous power of attorney has lapsed. In doing so, the Supreme Court has explicitly reversed its 2013 judgment.
Caution regarding power of attorney in civil proceedings
The Supreme Court justifies its change of course as follows. The provisions on power of attorney in the Civil Code (BW) are applicable by analogy outside the field of property law only in so far as the nature of the legal relationship does not preclude this. The parliamentary explanatory notes indicate that one must be "extremely cautious" when applying these provisions by analogy to procedural legal acts. This justifies the court imposing stricter requirements than those prescribed by the BW.
In appeals and cassation proceedings as well
The Supreme Court emphasises that these rules apply to objections, appeals, appeals on points of law and cassation proceedings. Anyone acting as an authorised representative would be well advised to ensure that they have an up-to-date and specific power of attorney. A general power of attorney issued years ago is not automatically sufficient.