by Redaktor | Oct 2, 2019 | news-en
When deciding on a divorce, the court also generally rules on the guilt of the spouses (or one of them) for breaking down their marriage. The reasons for blaming one of the spouses can be, as case law shows, very different.
In his "Commentary to some provisions of the Family and Guardianship Code ..." Zdzisław Krzemiński indicates an interesting case in which one of the spouses may be blamed for decaying the marriage - refusal to have sex. Article 23 of the Family and Guardianship Code actually states that spouses are obliged to live together, and the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of February 12, 1997, reference number I SA 1638/95 explains that living together consists of psychological, physical and economic bonds. In the commentary, Krzemiński cites two decisions of the Supreme Court. The first of them from November 15, 1951 with reference number C 1003/51 states that "Making a relationship with my husband dependent on" rewriting "an apartment in the name of a wife and donating her furniture - can be considered the wife's complicity in deepening the already existing decay (...)". However, in the second of May 2, 1952, signatures C 1095/51, we can read: "A marriage that does not proceed to fulfill the obligations imposed by the conclusion of a marriage (...) is from the very beginning dead and does not fulfill its tasks social (...). The mere refusal of one of the spouses to commence intercourse can be regarded as an important reason for the breakdown of a marriage, and her motive would be relevant for the assessment of guilt in causing the breakdown of that marriage. " Nevertheless, it is obvious that such a guilt will not be pronounced if the refusal to have sex was related, for example, to physical violence or other harm.
by Redaktor | Sep 3, 2019 | news-en
As follows from art. 56 and 57 of the Family and Guardianship Code, the court must declare a complete and lasting breakdown of marriage in order to obtain a divorce. At the same time, as a rule, the court also states whether and which of the spouses is guilty of him. The reasons for blaming one of the spouses can be, as case law shows, very different.
In his judgment of 25 August 2004 reference number IV CK 609/03, the Supreme Court ruled that a change of religion by one of the spouses may be considered the culpable reason for the breakdown of the marriage. The party burdened with the guilt raised the arguments of non-compliance of such ruling with Art. 53 (1-3) of the Polish Constitution, which guarantees everyone not only freedom of conscience and religion, but also the right to religious education of children in accordance with their beliefs. Another argument was the alleged violation of Art. 9 paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which also guarantees the right to freedom of religion.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that the issue of the impact of a change in religion by one of the spouses cannot be considered solely from the point of view of the principles of freedom of religion. It also requires focus on the effects of the choices made. The effects of choosing one of the spouses can be seen in terms of the reasons for the breakdown of the marriage, as well as faults in the breakdown of the marriage, if they significantly violate the justified interest of the other spouse and the current model of marriage and family.
by Redaktor | Aug 3, 2019 | news-en
In a judgment of 22 August 2018 (file reference number V ACa 589/17), the Court of Appeal in Katowice stated that the refusal to consent to divorce is contrary to the principles of social co-existence in a situation where there is no emotional bond between the spouses, such as they also have not been in contact with each other for many years, and one of the spouses seeks to formalize a relationship with another person for several years. The court held that the passage of time was relevant to assessing whether refusal to consent to divorce was in a given circumstance contrary to the principles of social coexistence.
In this case, there was no doubt as to the permanence and completeness of the break-up of the marriage and the sole fault of one of the parties (plaintiff). The defendant refused permission to divorce, claiming that she would soon lose her job (planned liquidation of the employer) and had a disabled daughter, so her husband's salary and pension would be used to meet the needs of the whole family, which would be impossible in the event of divorce. The defendant helped the plaintiff take up a job and earlier in obtaining his qualification. At the same time, the defendant did not approve the plaintiff's new partner.
The Court of Appeal found that the above arguments are not sufficient to disagree with the divorce in accordance with the principles of social coexistence. The court pointed out that the marriage has not had any contact for more than 4 years, and the plaintiff has been in a relationship with another woman since the age of 8. This marriage is in fact dead, it exists only on paper, therefore the court believed that artificial maintenance is not socially desirable.
