Section 61: How an attorney is appointed

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 11418/2557 (2014)

   An attorney's appointment must be in writing, signed by the party and the attorney, and filed with the court under section 61; failure to establish the signatory's authority means the person has no authority, and steps he then takes are those of an outsider and do not bind the party.

   The attorney appointments were not supported by the orders showing the signatory's authority to act for the naval commander, and no such evidence was adduced. The Supreme Court held this failed to comply with section 61, so the ensuing proceedings were unlawful and the acts of a person without authority, which did not bind the party.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2929/2551 (2008)

   Where a public prosecutor is appointed a consumer-protection officer and sues in that capacity, the consumers are not the plaintiffs and need not appoint the prosecutor under section 61.

   The defendant argued that the consumers had not appointed the prosecutor under section 61. The Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff had appointed the prosecutor as a consumer-protection officer with power to sue in his own capacity, the consumers were not the plaintiffs and no appointment under section 61 was needed; the prosecutor's authority to sue was valid.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.