In the decision of November 22, 2022 (reference number I CSK 4075/22), the Supreme Court stated that it is not possible to catalog important reasons which, in accordance with Art. 43 § 2 of the Family and Guardianship Code must occur so that unequal shares in the marital property of the spouses can be determined. Reconstructing important reasons within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision largely involves assessing the circumstances of a specific case.
By the said decision, the Supreme Court refused to accept for consideration the cassation appeal filed by the applicant, who demanded the repeal of the contested decision of the court of second instance dismissing the appeal in the case of division of joint property and demanded a change of this decision by establishing that her share in the joint property was 90%, and spouse: 10%. The applicant argued that the case involved important legal issues and the cassation appeal was obviously justified.
The Supreme Court found that the cassation appeal did not meet the requirements specified in Art. 3989 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requirements for accepting it for diagnosis. The court emphasized that there was no significant legal issue in the case that would be covered by cassation grounds, would be considered important from the point of view of resolving the case and had not yet been resolved in case law.
The most important issue in the case at hand was to determine whether there were important reasons justifying the determination of unequal shares in the marital property. However, in accordance with the position of the Supreme Court established in the case law, it is not possible to abstractly define the catalog of these important reasons. Reconstructing valid reasons must be done on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the court hearing the substantive case of a given case, not the court of cassation. Therefore, in the case in question, the Supreme Court found that the applicant’s argument did not constitute a justification for the cassation appeal, but was only a polemic with the position of the second-instance court, and therefore the cassation appeal could not be recognized.