ATTENTION – THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION from Polish
In its judgment of January 14, 2026 (II SA/Łd 744/25), the Provincial Administrative Court in Łódź confirmed that the fulfillment of even one statutory requirement is sufficient to initiate proceedings to recognize a debtor as having evaded maintenance obligations – in particular, preventing a maintenance interview from being conducted or failing to submit a financial declaration.
The court emphasized that a decision to recognize a debtor as having evaded maintenance obligations may be issued if, over the past six months, the debtor has failed to pay at least 50% of the currently determined maintenance payments each month. Regularity of payments is crucial – subsequent overpayments or earlier higher amounts do not eliminate the failure to pay in specific months. At the same time, it was pointed out that administrative authorities do not examine the validity of the bailiff's findings regarding the ineffectiveness of enforcement – any objections in this regard should be raised in accordance with the procedure applicable to enforcement proceedings.
It is also important that the alimony debtor's citing a difficult health situation does not automatically release them from the obligation to cooperate with the authority. Inaction and failure to respond to requests may be considered a condition for initiating proceedings to deem the debtor to be in default of maintenance obligations.
In conclusion, the ruling confirms the restrictive and formal interpretation of the regulations –
in alimony cases, the systematic fulfillment of the obligation and the debtor's active attitude towards administrative authorities are crucial. As the Court stated in the ruling, "As is clear from the case files, the complainant was not interested in the ongoing proceedings and did not participate in them." Active participation in administrative proceedings at every stage, including appeals proceedings, through familiarity with the case files and evidentiary activity, as well as participation in the proceedings, can have a beneficial impact on the outcome of the case, which is worth remembering.
The judgment is not final.