by Redaktor | Aug 13, 2025 | news-en
ATTENTION! Automatic translation from Polish
The Act of June 4, 2025, signed by the President on July 3, 2025 (entry into force: October 8, 2025), introduces a change to the Family and Guardianship Code (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 2809, hereinafter referred to as the Family and Guardianship Code) that is beneficial to divorcees. The amendment concerns Article 59 of the Family and Guardianship Code and extends the period within which a divorced person may revert to their pre-marital surname.
According to the new wording of Article 59 of the Family and Guardianship Code, within one year of the divorce decree becoming final, a divorced spouse who has changed their surname as a result of marriage may revert to their pre-marital surname. To do so, a declaration must be submitted to the head of the registry office or a consul. Previously, divorced persons had only three months to submit such a declaration, and this deadline was preclusive. Extending this period to one year gives divorced persons more time to make a considered decision.
It is worth remembering that a declaration of reversion to the surname used before marriage can only be submitted to the head of the civil registry office or to a consul, who will forward it to the appropriate head of the civil registry office. No other body is authorized to accept such a declaration, and the court cannot include a relevant ruling in the divorce decree.
This position was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of September 23, 1974, file reference III CRN 188/74: "However, she [the divorced wife] may submit a declaration in this matter only to the head of the civil registry office (...) No other body is authorized to accept the declaration. Nor can the court include such a ruling in the divorce decree itself."
by Redaktor | Jul 22, 2025 | news-en
ATTENTION ! automatic translation from Polish
According to the Supreme Court decision of March 11, 2025 (III USK 326/23), the maintenance obligation under Article 60 of the Family and Guardianship Code is limited in time and this aspect is of primary importance. Thus, if the obligated spouse is a divorced spouse who has not been found guilty of the breakdown of the marriage, this obligation expires if the spouse enters into a new marriage and after five years from the divorce decree, unless due to exceptional circumstances the court, at the request of the entitled person, extends the aforementioned five-year period (Article 60 § 3 of the Family and Guardianship Code).
The expiration of the maintenance obligation after five years from the divorce decree (Family Family and Guardianship Code) excludes the right to a family pension for the divorced spouse (as stated by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 29 July 2020, I UK 10/19, OSNP 2021 No. 4, item 45). Failure to obtain an extension of the five-year period referred to in Art. 60 § 3, second sentence, of the Family and Guardianship Code results in the expiration of the maintenance obligation of the divorced spouse, which means failure to meet one of the conditions necessary for granting a family pension, consisting in having the right to maintenance established by a court judgment or a court settlement on the day of the former husband's death (Art. 70 sec. 3 of the Pension Act). As a consequence, the expiry of the maintenance obligation (KRO) entails all the consequences that the law associates with the benefit of maintenance (see the Supreme Court decision of 17 February 2022, I USK 403/21, LEX No. 3402684).
by Redaktor | Jun 3, 2025 | news-en
ATTENTION!!! Automatic translation from Polish.
According to the draft of the Ministry of Justice of May 12, 2025 (Government Legislation Center list number: UDER24), the proceedings for the dissolution of marriage in Poland are facing a revolutionary change.
The drafter proposes to introduce a solution that will allow spouses to obtain a dissolution by submitting consistent statements before the head of the Civil Registry Office or before the Polish Consul (in the case of Polish citizens staying abroad).
The grounds for dissolving a marriage in this procedure were defined by the drafter as follows: complete and permanent breakdown of marriage, duration of the marriage longer than one year and no common minor children.
The effects of an extrajudicial divorce will be the same as a divorce obtained under the previous rules.
Importantly, an extrajudicial divorce produces the same effects as if neither spouse was at fault for the breakdown of marriage.
At the same time, a procedure enabling extrajudicial divorce has been provided for, as each of the spouses and the head of the registry office may file a request to invalidate an extrajudicial divorce if, at the time of submitting the declaration of dissolution of the marriage, the spouses had common minor children.
According to the draft, an action for invalidation of an extrajudicial divorce may also be filed by a spouse who, at the time of submitting the declaration of dissolution of the marriage, acted:
a) in a state that precluded conscious or free decision-making and expression of will;
b) under the influence of an unlawful threat from the other spouse or a third party, if it follows from the circumstances that the person submitting the declaration could have feared that he or she or another person was in serious personal or property danger;
c) under the influence of an error, caused deceitfully by the other spouse, justifying the assumption that if the spouse had not acted under the influence of error and had assessed the matter reasonably, he or she would not have submitted a declaration of dissolution of the marriage; the deceit of a third party is equivalent to the deceit of the other spouse, if the latter knew about the deceit. The time limit for filing this action for the annulment of an extrajudicial divorce is 6 months from the cessation of the above obstacles, but no later than 3 years from the submission of consistent declarations of dissolution of the marriage before the head of the Civil Registry Office or the consul.
A detailed procedure leading to the dissolution of the marriage before the head of the civil registry office has been provided for as part of the amendments to the Act of 28 November 2024 - the Law on Civil Status Records. In particular, attention should be paid to 2 amendments to this Act.
The head of the civil registry office cannot receive assurances from the spouses if a divorce case is pending between the spouses.
Spouses intending to dissolve the marriage through an extrajudicial divorce, simultaneously present, present identity documents to the head of the civil registry office or the consul and submit assurances in writing recorded in paper form confirming the existence of the grounds for an extrajudicial divorce.
The proposed change ensures the acceleration of the possibility of obtaining a divorce and relief of the courts, while meeting the conditions for obtaining a divorce in this procedure.
The deadline for completing the legislative work was set for the second quarter of 2025.
by Redaktor | May 30, 2025 | news-en
ATTENTION ! automatic translation from Polish
According to the Supreme Court decision of 12 July 2023 (I USK 316/22), a court decision on separation excludes the widow's right to a family pension under art. 70 sec. 3 u.e.r.f.u.s., unless she had the right to alimony from her husband on the day of his death established by a judgment or court settlement. After the separation decision, the condition for the right to a family pension is to establish that the deceased actually voluntarily supported the spouse, and not only provided mutual assistance (art. 60 sec. 1 or 2 in connection with art. 614 sec. 3 k.r.o. and art. 70 sec. 3 u.e.r.f.u.s.).
by Redaktor | Apr 28, 2025 | news-en
Warning: This is an automated translation from Polish. Accuracy may vary.
According to Article 94 of Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of June 25, 2019 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility and on international child abduction, this regulation replaced for member states the conventions existing at the time of the entry into force of Regulation (ec) No. 2201/2003, concluded between two or more member states and concerning matters governed by this regulation. This includes the agreement with France of April 5, 1967.
This is indirectly confirmed by the Supreme Court's judgment of May 28, 2014. (I CSK 330/13), which referred to the former Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of November 27, 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility.
The Supreme Court noted, however, that cases involving matrimonial property relations do not fall within the scope of any of the legal acts that make up the European Union's regulations on national jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and in this per
