by Redaktor | Nov 5, 2026 | news-en
PLEASE NOTE: the following is an automatic translation
Pursuant to Article 52, § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code (k.r.o.), either spouse may request the establishment of separate property for “important reasons.” These refer to a situation in which the continuation of the community of property infringes upon the financial interests of a spouse or the family, or when, due to a conflict, the joint administration of the property becomes impossible.
In Case No. VI Ca 292/25, the Regional Court in Olsztyn (hearing an appeal from the judgment of the District Court in Pisz, Case No. III RC 71/25) analyzed the impact of de facto separation on the property regime. The purpose of joint property is the efficient and harmonious management of finances. The concept of “living apart” encompasses a lack of cooperation, shared plans, and the willingness to share property. When spouses maintain separate bank accounts, manage their income independently, and split household expenses equally—functioning as roommates—the continued existence of the community property regime becomes a fiction. This constitutes full grounds for its judicial dissolution.
The court also analyzed Article 52 § 2, sentence 2 of the Family and Guardianship Code, which establishes the rules for ruling on the separation of property with retroactive effect. This provision constitutes an exception permissible only in “exceptional cases.” The mere fact of living separately gives the court only the option, not the obligation, to retroactively dissolve the community of property.
Establishing separate property retroactively requires demonstrating reprehensible conduct by one of the spouses that poses a real threat to the joint property (e.g., squandering funds, incurring secret debts). Events such as initiating a “Blue Card” procedure or an allegation of personal disloyalty, without proof of damage to the marital estate, do not constitute grounds for a ruling on separation of property with retroactive effect.
Consequently, the Regional Court partially granted the plaintiff’s appeal: it established separate property due to the permanent de facto separation and lack of financial cooperation, but refused to assign a retroactive date to it.
by Redaktor | Oct 19, 2026 | news-en
PLEASE NOTE: the following is an automatic translation
Separation proceedings, much like divorce proceedings, are not limited solely to determining the future status of the spouses. In specific cases, the court may also rule on the manner of using the jointly occupied dwelling and—in exceptional circumstances—order the eviction of one of the spouses.
The legal basis for this is Article 61³ § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, which stipulates that Article 58 § 2 of the Code applies accordingly to rulings regarding the shared dwelling in separation cases. This means that, in a judgment granting separation, the court may—at the request of the other spouse—order the eviction of the spouse whose grossly reprehensible conduct makes cohabitation impossible.
This criterion is subject to strict interpretation. Case law from both the Supreme Court and common courts indicates that eviction in family proceedings is an exceptional measure and may be ordered only in particularly drastic situations. Such conduct is primarily understood to include physical or psychological violence, persistent alcohol abuse accompanied by aggression, threats, abuse of family members, or other behaviors posing a real threat to the safety of household members. Marital conflict, the loss of emotional bonds, or difficulties in cohabitation do not constitute sufficient grounds for ordering eviction. It must be emphasized that an eviction order is not issued *ex officio*. It requires an express request from the spouse and a demonstration of circumstances justifying the use of this specific measure. The burden of proving the other spouse's grossly reprehensible conduct rests on the party making the request.
The nature of the right to the premises is also of significant importance. Established case law holds that the regulation contained in Article 58 § 2 of the Family and Guardianship Code—applied *mutatis mutandis* in separation proceedings—primarily concerns the jointly occupied dwelling and cannot result in depriving a spouse of the right to premises that constitute their sole property or to which they hold an exclusive legal title. In practice, this means that a person subjected to violence or other particularly reprehensible behavior by their spouse is not left without protection as early as the separation proceedings stage. A properly drafted petition or response to a petition may include a request for eviction, enabling the court to comprehensively regulate the parties' housing situation. In cases where the criteria set out in Article 58 § 2 of the Family and Guardianship Code are not met or the application of this provision is precluded, it remains possible to seek eviction based on separate provisions of civil law or the Act on the Protection of Tenants' Rights—depending on the nature of the legal title to the premises and the specific circumstances of the case.
To preliminarily assess the merits of making such a request during separation proceedings, it is advisable to consult a law firm handling civil, family, and criminal cases; depending on the factual grounds for ordering a spouse's eviction, the knowledge and litigation experience gained across various types of proceedings may be essential to formulate and substantiate a request with a reasonable chance of success in court.
by Redaktor | Sep 18, 2026 | news-en
PLEASE NOTE: the following is an automatic translation
Work is currently underway at the Ministry of Justice on a comprehensive reform of family law, one of the key aims of which is to strengthen the involvement of both parents in their child’s upbringing following a separation. The proposed measures are designed to bring current regulations into line with changing social realities and to enhance the protection of a child’s right to maintain lasting relationships with each parent.
Of particular interest is the concept of so-called ‘shared custody’, which envisages a more equal division of parental involvement in the day-to-day care of the child. The proposed provisions move away from the established model, under which, following a parental separation, the child usually lives permanently with one parent, whilst the other has contact on specific dates. Instead, the legislator is considering introducing measures to enable both parents to play a greater role in decision-making regarding the child’s life and in the day-to-day care of the child.
However, the proposed changes are sparking significant debate within the legal community. It has been pointed out that the new regulations should clearly define the criteria for the application of joint custody and take account of the diversity of family situations. Doubts have also been raised regarding the feasibility of applying this model in cases of deep conflict between parents, a lack of cooperation on matters concerning the child, or a significant distance between the parents’ places of residence. It is emphasised that the overriding criterion in each case should remain the best interests of the child, rather than the formal equality of the parents’ rights.
The planned reform forms part of a broader programme of changes aimed at streamlining the functioning of the family courts and increasing the effectiveness of proceedings concerning children. The new provisions are intended to lead to the faster resolution of family disputes, a reduction in the escalation of conflicts, and greater consideration of the needs of minors involved in proceedings.
Our legal team successfully handles family law cases, including those involving the care of the parties’ or participants’ minor children; for this reason, we are following the progress of the legislative process in this area with great interest.
by Redaktor | Aug 17, 2026 | news-en
Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 28 November 2003 on family benefits (Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1208), family allowance and allowance supplements, as well as other benefits provided for in this Act (collectively referred to as family benefits, listed in Art. 2 of this Act), are available to Polish citizens and, in specific cases, to foreigners. To be eligible to apply for this allowance, two conditions must be met. First, you must be the parent, legal guardian, or actual guardian of the child, or a student. Second, you must demonstrate adequate income, which is calculated by adding the income of all family members and then dividing the resulting amount by the number of family members. The basic income criterion specified in the Act in this regard is currently PLN 674 per person. This amount was most recently announced in the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of August 13, 2024, on the amount of family income or the income of a student constituting the basis for applying for family allowance and special care allowance, the amount of family benefits, and the amount of caregiver allowance (Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1238). There is a question whether the income of a spouse who is de facto separated should be included in this calculated amount, in a situation where, although a divorce has not been granted (for example, legal proceedings are pending), the parties do not live together and have no contact. Unfortunately, the structure of Article 3, Section 16 of the aforementioned Act refers to specific family members and does not allow for their actual relationships to be taken into account when assessing family status within the meaning of this Act. This position was supported by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of January 14, 2025, file reference I OSK 405/23. Therefore, regardless of the factual relationship between the spouses and the ongoing divorce proceedings, the spouses are treated as a family, and the income of both spouses will be taken into account when calculating whether the criterion for receiving family benefits is met. Particular attention should be paid to situations where one spouse receives benefits and the other, de facto separated, fails to inform the first spouse that they have taken up employment whose income exceeds the income criterion for receiving the benefit, mentioned above. In such a case, the administrative body may order the repayment of the unduly received benefit in the appropriate portion, starting from the date of commencement of employment. Finally, it should be emphasized that the situation would be different in the case of a formal separation ordered by the court – in such a case, the income of the second spouse is not included in the family limit. (see, among others, judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court of 20 June 2012, file reference II SA/Po 267/12). The court's decision on formal separation is therefore important for determining the right to receive family benefits in the form of family allowance and supplements.
by Redaktor | Jul 20, 2026 | news-en
The judgment of the District Court in Łódź of November 6, 2025, demonstrates that a separation does not automatically mean the loss of the right to a survivor's pension after the deceased spouse.
The court noted that although separation has consequences similar to divorce, it does not completely eliminate the mutual obligations between spouses. Actual financial support provided after separation can be crucial – even if alimony has not been formally ordered by the court.
In practice, the actual relationship between the parties, not just the formal status of the marriage, is becoming increasingly important. Regular transfers, verbal maintenance agreements, or long-term financial assistance can be considered fulfillment of the maintenance obligation, opening the way to a survivor's pension.
It is worth emphasizing that this ruling is important not only for those applying for a survivor's pension. It highlights the broader issue of the effects of separation in family and insurance law – the formal separation of spouses does not always mean the complete termination of mutual obligations. Each case therefore requires an individual analysis of the actual relationship between the parties.
For separated individuals, this ruling also provides important practical guidance: even voluntary and informal financial support can have significant future legal consequences. In many cases, it is worthwhile to ensure proper documentation of such arrangements and financial flows, as they may prove crucial when pursuing benefits after the death of a spouse.
by Redaktor | Jun 2, 2026 | news-en
ATTENTION – THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION FROM POLISH
The provisions regarding caregiver benefits continue to raise numerous doubts in administrative practice. One of the most frequently arising issues is the possibility of granting the benefit to a person providing care for a married loved one. The Provincial Administrative Court in Gdańsk addressed this issue in its judgment of November 13, 2024 (ref. II SA/Gd 543/24).
The Court recalled that the marital bond holds special importance in the Polish legal system. The obligation of mutual assistance and support between spouses stems directly from family law provisions and is statutory in nature. For this reason, the legislator also gives priority to the spouse of the person requiring care under the provisions on family benefits.
In practice, this means that if the person requiring care is married, caregiver benefits generally cannot be granted to other family members. An exception applies if the spouse themselves holds a certificate of significant disability. The court emphasized that the de facto separation of spouses or difficulties in providing care do not automatically waive obligations arising from family law – as long as the formal marriage exists, these obligations remain in force. At the same time, the court highlighted an important procedural aspect. Administrative authorities are obligated to inform parties of the conditions that, if not met, may lead to the denial of benefits. If the only obstacle is the lack of a specific document – for example, a certificate of significant disability of the spouse – the authority should inform the party of this circumstance and allow them to supplement the evidence.
