NOTE: translated from Polish!
In the judgment of 8 April 2025 (ref. no. II CSKP 185/23), the Supreme Court referred comprehensively to the possibility of challenging legal acts related to the maintenance obligation in the Paulian complaint procedure. This ruling is in line with the established line of case-law, according to which maintenance activities may also be assessed in terms of detriment to creditors.
The Supreme Court confirmed that both maintenance agreements and settlements concluded before the court are substantive legal transactions which, if they lead to the detriment of creditors, may be rendered ineffective by means of a Paulian complaint. This applies in particular to situations where the maintenance payment has been determined in an amount grossly exceeding the actual needs or despite the lack of statutory prerequisites.
It is worth noting that although alimony enjoys a privileged position in enforcement proceedings, in the case of abuse of this protection, it is possible to demonstrate that a specific action was aimed at harming other creditors. In such cases, as noted by the Supreme Court, the creditor may claim priority satisfaction, demonstrating that the maintenance obligation has expired or has been established artificially, only to protect the debtor's assets.
However, the Supreme Court ruled out the possibility of challenging the judgment awarding alimony itself, pointing out that the Paulian complaint may concern only legal acts, not court decisions. It is worth noting that it is possible to challenge the debtor's actions (e.g. tacit acceptance of the enforcement of unjustified alimony) that result in the transfer of benefits to a third party to the detriment of other creditors.
The conclusion of the ruling is to confirm that the protection of alimony as preferential claims is not absolute. In exceptional situations, when the maintenance obligation is used instrumentally, it is possible to limit it against a specific creditor by means of a Paulian action.