by Admin2 | Feb 1, 2022 | news-en
In the judgment of June 30, 2021, the Supreme Court recalled that "even a difficult financial situation of a parent does not release him from the obligation to provide child support. The parent is obliged to share even a very meager income with the child. On the other hand, in extreme situations, satisfying the needs of minor children may even take place at the expense of some assets. " This means that the court may order maintenance even from a parent who does not earn any income, forcing him to sell the property. Of course, this cannot lead to the parent's living standard falling below that of the child.
by Admin2 | Jan 3, 2022 | news-en
Pursuant to Art. 60 § 3 of the Polish Family and Guardianship Code, the maintenance obligation towards the former spouse shall expire in the event of the contracting of a new marriage by that spouse. Therefore, the Supreme Court in the judgment of 10 July 1998 (I CKN 788/97) had to rule that if the former spouse did not formalize a new relationship, the maintenance obligation still exists. Staying in cohabitation by a divorced spouse entitled to alimony is not a statutory condition for the expiry of the maintenance obligation towards him by the other divorced spouse.
by Admin2 | Dec 1, 2021 | news-en
In the judgment of December 2, 2020 (IV KK 706/19), the Supreme Court rightly recalled that "apart from the amount of income earned by the accused and his earning potential, from the perspective of assessing whether the accused fulfilled the features of a prohibited act under Art. 209 § 1a of the CC in connection with from § 1 of the CC and any further findings as to the degree of social harmfulness of this act, the amount and nature of the financial obligations incumbent on him is also of key importance, including in particular those subject to enforcement proceedings, as well as the degree to which the accused fulfilled these obligations and his efforts in in this respect "
This ruling was issued in a case in which the accused could not fulfill his maintenance obligation due to bailiff seizures.
by Admin2 | Nov 1, 2021 | news-en
The Court of Appeal in Kraków, in its judgment of June 15, 2021, rightly pointed out that if, after the divorce judgment was issued by the court of first instance, there was a change in the so-called relations within the meaning of Art. 138 k.r.o. it is the court of second instance that may change this alimony. This is so because "in a divorce case, the decision on the maintenance obligation of divorcing parents towards their minor children applies to benefits from the date of the validity of this judgment."
by Admin2 | Oct 4, 2021 | news-en
The Act of 23 March 2017 amending the Act - Penal Code and the Act on assistance to persons entitled to alimony (Journal of Laws of 2017, item 952) introduced changes to the statutory description of the offense of non-alimony. First of all, the hitherto mark of persistence has been replaced with a specific period beyond which non-alimony becomes a crime. However, this amendment also introduced another significant change. The legislator resigned from indicating the sources of the maintenance obligation (the act and the court ruling), pointing out at the same time that only the avoidance of maintenance is punishable in the case where the amount of maintenance has been specified, inter alia, a court decision or contract. Does it mean that the legislator completely resigned from punishing non-alimony, when the obligation arises only from the act?
This question had to be faced by the Supreme Court in the case no. act IV KK 56/19. In the decision of March 16, 2020, the Supreme Court indicated that the above-mentioned amendment decriminalizes only one case of maintenance evasion - when its obligation results from the act, and the amount of maintenance is not specified in any of the forms listed in the Penal Code (these may be: a court decision, a settlement concluded before a court or other authority or an agreement). In other cases, the punishability of non-alimony remains unchanged.
The conclusion resulting from the position of the Supreme Court seems clear - in order for the criminal law to protect us against the offense of non-alimony, we must ensure that it is clearly specified as to the amount in the event of a statutory maintenance obligation.
