by Admin2 | Mar 1, 2024 | news-en
One of the obligations imposed on spouses is specified in Art. 27 of the Family and Guardianship Code, participation in the costs of maintaining the family. During divorce proceedings, which often last for a longer period, it is necessary to ensure that the spouses continue to participate in maintaining the family.
The institution used to ensure the participation of the other spouse in the costs of maintaining the family is a claim for security for the costs of maintaining the family for the duration of the trial. An application for security for family maintenance costs may be submitted both in a separate pleading or in the content of the lawsuit itself. The letter should indicate and justify the amount requested and make it probable that the family will bear the costs.
The claim, as emphasized by the case law of both common courts and the Supreme Court (resolution of the Supreme Court of July 13, 2011, III CZP 39/11), is independent in nature, independent of the verdict of the divorce court. For the spouse submitting such an application, this means that even if a lower amount of alimony is awarded in the divorce judgment, the benefit paid on the basis of the decision to grant security is not refundable. Moreover, the autonomous and final nature of the court's decision means that it constitutes an enforcement title, which becomes an enforcement title after the enforcement clause is issued. This title provides the basis for initiating enforcement proceedings and the possibility of collecting the amounts due. Also, the issuance of a divorce decree does not mean that the security is terminated by operation of law and the inability to enforce the amounts specified in the court's decision. This is another consequence of the autonomous nature of the claim.
by Admin2 | Feb 1, 2024 | news-en
A suit for alimony may be filed either according to general jurisdiction, i.e. to the court competent for the place of residence of the defendant, or to the court competent for the place of residence of the entitled person (Article 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure)
Pursuant to the resolution of the Supreme Court of April 16, 1991 (III CZP 24/91), this principle also applies to a request to change the amount of alimony. An alimony claim is an alimony claim, regardless of the legal basis invoked by the plaintiff.
A claim by the child's mother against the child's father for reimbursement of the child's maintenance and upbringing costs, based on the provisions of Art. 140 of the Family and Guardianship Code (resolution of the Supreme Court of October 6, 1967, III CZP 63/67)
by Admin2 | Jan 11, 2024 | news-en
Enforcement proceedings regulated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure include several institutions that enable the debtor to protect against further enforcement. One of them is provided for in Art. 883 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the possibility of discontinuing enforcement proceedings by paying all due payments and depositing an amount equal to the sum of periodic payments for six months to the deposit account of the Minister of Finance, with the simultaneous authorization of the bailiff to collect this amount in the future if the debtor is in default.
The implementation of the above provision may pose some problems. This is due to the fact that the method of depositing money in a court deposit described in Art. 883 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure constitutes a lex specialis in relation to the content of Art. 693² § 1, which states that an application for placing the subject of the service in a court deposit requires the court's permission. In the resolution of the Supreme Court III CZP 153/07, it was stated that in the case of depositing money in accordance with Art. 883 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, court permission is not required. Therefore, there is a question as to how money can be deposited.
In order to effectively place money in court deposit under Art. 883 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the money should be transferred to a deposit in the District Court under the jurisdiction of the bailiff conducting enforcement. The payment title should specify that it is an advance payment for alimony for a specific person and that it concerns enforcement proceedings conducted by a specific bailiff. Then, you should submit an application to discontinue the proceedings along with the authorization for the bailiff to carry out any future enforcement from the deposit account. The application must be accompanied by proof of payment to the account.
by Admin2 | Dec 1, 2023 | news-en
Based on Article. 115314 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enforceable titles in the Republic of Poland are judgments in maintenance matters issued in the Member States of the European Union that are parties to the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the law applicable to maintenance obligations (OJ EU L 331 of 16/12/2009, p. 17) and agreements and official documents in maintenance matters originating from these countries, falling within the scope of application of Regulation No. 4/2009.
Based on Article. 2 of Regulation No 4/2009, "judgment" means a judgment given in matters relating to maintenance obligations by a court of a Member State, whatever the name of such judgment, such as a judgment, order, order or enforcement order, as well as a judgment as to the determination of costs given by an officer of the court. "Court settlement" means a settlement in matters relating to maintenance obligations approved by a court or concluded before a court in the course of proceedings;. "Authentic document" means: a document in matters relating to maintenance obligations, drawn up or registered officially as an authentic document in the Member State of origin, the authenticity of which relates to the signature and the content of the authentic document and has been certified by a public authority or other body empowered for that purpose; or an agreement on matters relating to maintenance obligations concluded with or authenticated by the administrative authorities of the Member State of origin;.
by Admin2 | Nov 1, 2023 | news-en
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of October 27, 2023 (V KK 236/23Wyrok), stated that in the case of multiple (or collective) crimes, which include the offense under Art. 209 § 1 of the Penal Code, there is no state of res judicata if the previous final conviction concerns only a fragment of the later charged act. Evading the maintenance obligation during the period not covered by a final conviction is a new criminal act entailing further criminal liability, and the time limits of the next offense should be precisely defined, taking into account the content of the previous conviction.
This ruling was issued as a result of the cassation appeal of the Prosecutor General in a case in which the accused was convicted of a crime committed in the period from September 28, 2020 to May 31, 2021, while for an offense under Art. 209 § 1 of the Penal Code, to the detriment of the same injured party, committed in the period from December 1, 2019 to July 19, 2020, from September 28, 2020 to November 30, 2020 and from January 1, 2021 to 31 May 2021, the accused has already been sentenced by a penal order of the District Court in Sochaczew of May 9, 2022, ref. no. file II K 603/21.
Taking the above into account, the Supreme Court agreed to the cassation motion of the Prosecutor General and annulled the penal order judgment of the District Court in Sochaczew of January 16, 2023, ref. no. No. II K 456/21 and referred the case to the same Court for reconsideration, during which a judgment will be issued taking into account the above comments and devoid of the described shortcomings.
