A Polish court in Giżycko has questioned the division of assets between divorced spouses, challenging the validity of a divorce decree issued by a ‘neo-judge’.
Divorce in Question?
As reported by Prawo.pl, the controversial ruling by the Regional Court in Giżycko was issued on January 12, 2026. The judge there dismissed a request for the division of common property between two ex-spouses, arguing that the divorce ruling was non-existent, therefore the premise of common property had not ceased. The reason was that the divorce case was adjudicated by a so-called ‘neo-judge’.
Marriage Status Clarified
“To the question of whether the marriage in question is divorced, the answer is yes. A divorce ruling, if not appealed by the parties, is final. In Poland, there is a presumption of correctness of rulings until they are overturned in special procedures,” said Judge Olimpia Barańska-Maluszek, president of the Regional Court in Gorzów, in an interview with DGP. She emphasizes that a situation where a regional court would declare the non-existence of a ruling from a district court in another city would lead to unimaginable chaos. “Even without being a lawyer, we sense the absurdity of such an assumption,” she points out.
Uncommon Legal Approach
The approach adopted by the Gorzów judge is not a commonly seen line of jurisprudence. “Rulings in which judges dared to construct the ‘non-existence’ of another court’s ruling were incidental and later overturned by regional courts. Therefore, regarding the key division of property in this case, I suspect it will be similar – the regional court will recognize the appeal against the dismissal of the property division request as justified, set aside the ruling and order the case to be reconsidered,” predicts Judge Barańska-Maluszek.
Legal Challenges
She notes that the only correct way to overturn a ruling due to a defective panel is through control during the instance proceedings – either ex officio or on a party’s motion. While such objections are frequently raised in criminal cases, as they prolong proceedings bringing them closer to statute of limitations, in civil cases this happens rarely because parties usually have no interest in prolonging the process.
Sharp Rulings as Pressure
One of the few judges who attempted to challenge a decision of a higher court due to it being issued by a neo-judge was Piotr Mgłosiek, a judge of the District Court for Wrocław-Krzyków in Wrocław (file no. VII Ko 34/24). In the case described by DGP last year, the judge tried to prove that even the lowest courts in the hierarchy have the right to question the judicial panel. However, the Wrocław Regional Court disagreed, stating that a first-instance court has no competence to intervene in a decision made by another court (file no. V Kzw 339/24).
Legal System Consequences
Anna Gręda-Adamczyk, a lawyer specializing in family law, in conversation with DGP, does not want to resolve the case on the merits, pointing out only that a citizen cannot bear the consequences of the system’s defective action, inconsistencies and discrepancies in jurisprudence. “In family cases, this is very complicated because divorced spouses enter into subsequent marriages and children are born after divorce, and it may turn out that years after divorce, there is still a presumption of the child’s paternity from the husband. Turmoil may also affect statutory inheritance. Since there was no final dissolution of marriage by divorce, the spouse inherits under the law,” she explains.
Dangerous Legal Dualism
“The phenomenon of the emergence of a dual legal order that we have been observing for some time is of course very dangerous. Some do not recognize the rulings or institutions of others, we have ‘double’ chief prosecutors or disciplinary representatives. It seems to me that an analogy comparing this situation to the ECJ rulings on Swiss franc loans would be appropriate. These became increasingly harsh because for years the Polish state remained completely inactive in this matter. Ultimately, they led to the situation where we had no choice but to declare the proceedings invalid,” says Judge Barańska-Maluszek.
Judicial Responsibility
In her opinion, we are in exactly the same situation regarding the status of the judge and defects in his appointment. “Courts are testing different paths in order to force the responsible authorities – the legislative and executive powers – to make appropriate legislative changes. In my opinion, of course, it should not go as far as in the case of the court in Giżycko, but the repair of the situation in the judiciary should not be the duty of judges, but of the legislature,” she said.
Government Response
For the head of the Ministry of Justice Waldemar Żurek, the matter of the Gorzów court’s ruling became another opportunity to recall that a systemic regulation of the situation in the Polish judiciary is necessary, which he believes will be achieved by adopting amendments to the KRS Act and the rule of law act. In a December interview with DGP, Deputy Minister of Justice Dariusz Mazur admitted, however, that in a situation where political reasons do not allow for the adoption of corrective laws, “the burden of ensuring the right to an independent and impartial court established by law will still rest mainly on properly appointed judges.”