1. The subject of the dispute is the dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. The court of appeal refused to open appellate proceedings, because the plaintiff, according to her, did not sign the statement of claim and did not intend to dissolve the marriage, but the court took into account that her interests in court were represented by a lawyer who supported the claim. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision, noting that the appellate court should have verified the plaintiff’s arguments that she did not file a claim with the court at all, did not sign the statement of claim, and that the lawyer acted arbitrarily, but the appellate court did not do so. The Court emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments, did not take into account her procedural behavior, and prematurely refused to open proceedings, without giving her the opportunity to prove the absence of intent to appeal to the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case back to the court of appeal for a new hearing to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
