In its ruling of March 26, 2025 (I CSK 4019/24), the Supreme Court emphasized the grounds for invalidating proceedings due to depriving a party of the ability to defend their rights:
- Establishment of procedural violations (e.g., failure to notify a party of hearings or improperly excluding evidence).
- Demonstration of the impact of such violations on the party’s capacity to act (e.g., inability to present arguments or challenge evidence).
- Examination of whether, despite these two conditions, the party could still defend their rights, including whether there was no realistic opportunity to protect their interests even with formal procedural rights.
Key Legal Questions in Joint Property Division
- Criteria for unequal shares:
Does establishing unequal shares in joint property fall within the scope of judicial discretion, or must courts apply specific criteria (e.g., mathematical comparison of income over a defined period) when determining unequal shares? - Appellate court’s authority:
Does a second-instance court’s modification of equal shares (established by the first-instance court) into unequal shares violate the two-instance principle by depriving parties of the right to appeal the modified ruling? Should such cases be remanded for retrial? - Separate property claims:
Does classifying property acquired during statutory joint ownership as separate property (due to a spouse’s pre-existing conditional perpetual usufruct requiring construction within four years) violate the surrogation principle under Art. 33(10) of the Family and Guardianship Code, particularly when there is a significant disparity in the legal nature or market value between the usufruct and ownership rights?
Conditions for Invalidating Proceedings
The deprivation of a party’s right to defend their interests requires cumulative fulfillment of:
- Procedural violations (e.g., improper exclusion from hearings).
- Substantive impact on the party’s ability to participate.
- No realistic opportunity to remedy the violation before the ruling.
Practical Implications
- Non-contentious proceedings: Joint property division cases (Art. 567 §1 CPC) are typically resolved in closed sessions, with hearings held only at the court’s discretion (Art. 514 §1 CPC).
- Active participation: The complaining party in this case had full access to submit written statements, which they actively utilized.
- Cassation appeal limits:
- Challenges must address legal errors, not factual disputes.
- No gravamen (prejudice) exists if the second-instance court increased the complaining party’s share, precluding cassation.
- Claims regarding factual findings or evidence do not qualify as „material legal issues”.
Conclusion
The cassation appeal’s allegations regarding factual findings and evidence assessment fail to meet the criteria for cassation review, which is strictly limited to legal interpretation.