Art. 134. In relation to siblings, the obligated person may evade maintenance if they are connected with excessive prejudice to him or his immediate family. (What is this undue prejudice – something from case law and commentaries)
Title II „Affinity and kinship”, section III of the Act of February 25, 1964 The Family and Guardianship Code provides for the maintenance obligation. The provision of art. 128 k.r.o. by establishing the institution of the maintenance obligation, it imposes on relatives in a straight line and on siblings the obligation to provide, in line with justified needs, means of subsistence, and, if necessary, also means of upbringing. According to the ruling of the Provincial Administrative Court in Szczecin, „this obligation is not exhausted in relations between relatives and may also apply to other relatives, not bound by blood ties.” (Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Szczecin of 17/09/2020, II SA / Sz 438/20, LEX No. 3088619). home. The means of education are, in particular, expenditure on education, physical development, as well as on meeting cultural needs and entertainment. ” (A. Kawałko, H. Witczak [in:] Family and guardianship code. Commentary, ed. M. Fras, M. Habdas, Warsaw 2021, art. 128.). Like most institutions of civil law, the maintenance obligation is not absolute. In situations where its performance would violate the principles of social coexistence, it must be limited. For this reason, however, only exceptionally, siblings may avoid the obligation. As an incidental note, it is worth noting that the regulation applies to both biological and natural siblings. The required condition, the fulfillment of which entitles to limit the discussed obligation, is a situation in which the performance of the obligation would be associated with excessive detriment to the obligated person or his / her immediate family. Correct interpretation requires establishing the scope of two concepts, i.e. how to understand the term immediate family and, above all, what behavior may be classified as connected with excessive prejudice.
According to the doctrine, the closest family includes the spouse and ascendants. In a situation where there would be a conflict of the maintenance obligation towards the immediate family and siblings, priority should be given to meeting the needs of the immediate family. As a side note, it can be pointed out that sometimes the notion of the immediate family is also identified with the parents of the obligated person, but only if they are dependent on him (A. Kawałko, H. Witczak [in:] The Family and Guardianship Code. Comment, ed. M. Fras, M. Habdas, Warsaw 2021, art. 134.). On the other hand, as the Court of Appeal in Kraków pointed out, in the judgment issued on January 24, 2013, „who is the closest family member is determined by the actual arrangement of relations between certain persons, and not the formal sequence of kinship resulting in particular from the provisions of the Family and Guardianship Code.” or possibly from affinity. ” (Judgment of the SA in Kraków of January 24, 2013, I ACa 1347/12, LEX No. 1362742.)
As for the excessive detriment, it is impossible to precisely determine the meaning of the concept. This was emphasized by the Court of Appeal in Warsaw in its judgment of 15 December 2010, unequivocally stating that „the Civil Code does not indicate any criteria according to which the detriment consisting in the deterioration of the life situation should be assessed”. Nevertheless, as T. Domińczyk states in the commentary to the act, the point is to establish the effects of a possible burden of maintenance for the debtor himself and his immediate family. Therefore, it is clear that an assessment of a specific case is required each time, taking into account the financial status and payment capacity of the obligee, and also predictions in this respect for the near future (T. Domińczyk [in:] Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary, 5th edition, ed. K. Piasecki, Warsaw 2011, art. 134.). According to J. Gwiazdomorski, a detriment that would result from the fulfillment of benefits and consequently make it impossible to meet the justified needs of siblings, which are so important that they are considered almost necessary, may be considered excessive.