Juridical acts to the detriment of creditors barred from being deemed legally ineffective with regard to those creditors after the lapse of 5 years from the date of the said acts SK 89/19
On 18 December 2024, the Constitutional Tribunal delivered its ruling issued with regard to Mr M. J.’s constitutional complaint concerning the lack of the possibility on the part of creditors to have juridical acts detrimental to them deemed legally ineffective with regard to them after the lapse of 5 years from the date of the said acts.
The Tribunal adjudicated that Article 534 of the Civil Code of 23 April 1964 (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2024, item 1061, as amended) is consistent with Article 45(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
The Tribunal discontinued the proceedings as to the remainder.
The ruling was unanimous.
Constituting the subject of the complaint, the legal institution regulated in the Third Book, Title X of the Civil Code alludes to the institution of actio Pauliana, known in Roman law. The idea underlying the said legal institution has remained an exception in the context of civil law, as the eligible creditor goes beyond his/her liability relationship with a particular debtor. By way of exception, the legislature has allowed that the creditor could sue not the debtor but a third party if the debtor has made the so-called fraudulent conveyance excessively diminishing the debtor’s assets.
However, the creditor is not entitled for an indefinite period of time to bring an actio Pauliana. Subjected to constitutional review in these proceedings, Article 534 of the Civil Code introduces with regard to the legal institution of actio Pauliana the time-limit for challenging a juridical act carried out to the detriment of creditors. Pursuant to that provision, it may not be requested that a juridical act carried out to the detriment of creditors be deemed legally ineffective [with regard to them] after the lapse of 5 years from the date of the said act. The impugned provision, with unchanged wording, has been binding since the entry into force of the Civil Code. What constituted the primary constitutional issue in the present case was the restriction of the creditor’s right of access to a court, imposed by means of a five-year time-limit – set in impugned Article 534 of the Code – for bringing court action challenging a juridical act carried out to the detriment of the creditor and deeming it legally ineffective with regard to the said creditor. Thus, in the course of the present case, the Tribunal had to examine whether the impugned provision had not led to the excessive and disproportionate restriction of the right of access to a court, as alleged by the complainant. Taking the above into consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate higher-level norms for the review of the constitutional issue formulated in that way were: Article 45(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution.
The Tribunal held that, when drafting the provisions on actio Pauliana, the legislature gave creditors the possibility of recourse to additional legal instruments which are exceptional in nature and are aimed at recovering receivables that are due. Yet, this does not entail that the legislature is obliged to guarantee unlimited recourse to that possibility. Indeed, assigning actio Pauliana with an appropriate time-limit (of 5 years in that context) falls within the legislative freedom.
By introducing certain provisions into the legal order, the legislature should balance out parties’ interests so that the final shape of the provisions would meet the requirements of proportionality. The introduction of the time-limit restricting the possibility of recourse to the special remedy of actio Pauliana is justified and motivated by the intention to stabilise the legal situation of participants of civil-law transactions. The intended effect has been fully attained by the legislature, by means of introducing into Article 534 of the Civil Code the preclusive time-limit for the creditor to bring action to deem that a juridical act detrimental to the creditor is legally ineffective with regard to the said creditor. The legal institution of preclusive time-limits, in many aspects, contributes to the protection of the public order, which constitutes the value indicated in Article 31(3) of the Constitution, and which justifies restricting the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms.
The adjudicating bench of the Constitutional Tribunal in the case was composed of: Judge Stanisław Piotrowicz – Presiding Judge; Judge Rafał Wojciechowski – Judge Rapporteur; Judge Jakub Stelina; Judge Wojciech Sych; and Judge Andrzej Zielonacki.