Article 43 § 2 of the Family and Guardianship Code, reading as follows: “However, for important reasons, each of the spouses may demand that the determination of shares in joint property take place taking into account the degree to which each of them contributed to the creation of this property. The heirs of the spouse may make such a request only if the testator has brought an action for annulment of marriage or divorce or has applied for a separation order. As a result, there is a wealth of case law on this article and the „good reasons” condition used in the provision. Practically every year, the Supreme Court makes a statement on the interpretation of this premise. The applicants repeatedly sought to have the Supreme Court express its opinion on the possibility of cataloging the premises arising from Art. 43 § 2, while the Court consistently refuses to take such a position.
The doctrine indicates that the premise of important reasons under Art. 43 § 2 is not the same as the premise of Art. 52 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code (cf. Partyk Aleksandra, „Unequal shares in joint property are established only for important reasons„, LEX/el. 2019), because it is more restrictive (cf. Fras Mariusz (ed.), Habdas Magdalena (ed. .), Family and Guardianship Code. Comment., WKP, 2021).
On the other hand, the jurisprudence is based on the view that the formulation of important reasons refers to the whole family life, the degree of fulfillment of family obligations, in particular failure to fulfill them and possible gross negligence towards the family (cf. decision of the Supreme Court of V CSK 436 / 18, LEX No. 2642780). „Important reasons” therefore refer to ethical aspects, not economic ones, and should be assessed in the light of the principles of social coexistence. In the discussed decision, the Supreme Court decided that the above wording should always be assessed in the light of a specific case and its circumstances, which makes it impossible to catalog the premises. In turn, in the decision of February 27, 2023, ref. no. no.: I CSK 3595/22, the Supreme Court confirmed the previous line of jurisprudence, at the same time pointing out that the use of the general clause by the legislator in this provision undoubtedly proves the intention to leave a decision-making slack, allowing for the assessment of the whole of a given case each time.