5780447523

AndrzrJ M<*l>**i

li

22

iv

Since ihc entry in forcc of the Civil Codc, thcrc were morę than 300 amendments passed with regard to its provjsions. The majonty thereof were introduced after 1989. They consist in abolition of provision$ rooted in the forrner political system, as well as in introduction of new rcgulations, mostly inspircd by Community law. Book 4 of the Civil Codc. howevcr. and morę prcciscly its nine TiUes, was only slightly and in no significant manner transformed unUl Dccembcr 2005. Most of the amendments were aimcd at adjusunent of Civil Codę provisions to the contcnts of other rcgulations - ncwly introduced or amended. The following changc* belongcd to the major amendments.

Ti tle I, which cocom passes the generał rules of succcssion. was rc pleni -shed with a provi*ion considering tbc succcssion by a foundation, established by the dcccdent in the testament (Art. 927 § 3 k.c.). The changc rcsultcd from the return to the Polish legał system of the institution of a foundation und the possibility of creating a foundation in a testament. Tire present contcnts of the provision stem from 1996, changcd in the order to adjust it to amended provisions on establisbing and registering foundations.

A couplc of amendments were introduced into the statutory succcssion model stipulated in Title II. At first. in 1995, parallel to the amendroent of the Family and Guardianship Codc. the rules on succcssion by a child of one of tbc spouses, adoplcd by the other spouse (Art. 936 § 3 k.c.) wen* spccificd. In 1999. introduction of the institution of separation into the Polish legał system was accompanicd by the introduction of a provision according to which a separated spouse is cxctuded from among statutory successors (Art. 935' k.c.). The provision is in itsclf redundant. sińce the exdusion results dirccily from the rcgulation of separation, which States that separation brings aboul the same cffeclt as divorce, unless otherwise stipulated by the law (Art. 64' k.r.o.). Additionally. the possibility of cxduding a spouse from the succcssion in a situation when the dcccdent filed a molion for granting a dworce hy fault of the other spouse was broadened by cases, whcrc the dcccdent filed a motion for separation (Art. 940 k.c.).

The most mcaningful amendment of statutory succcssion was madę m 2003 and considercd Art. 935 § 3, referring to a situation in which there s no spouse or ncxt of kin, who might mherit as statutory successors. The. pnmary sersion of the rcgulation providcd for the State treasure inhcritinj as a statutory successor. Prcscntly, it is the community, in which the dcccdent residcd at the moment of dcath, which is appointed as statutory successor the State treasure can be appointed as such only if the place of residcncc o

Dfirbpmfnu tn Pętak succtuton ladcccdent in the moment of dcath is unknown or is abroad The changc. returning to the rcgulation of 1946 dccrcc on succcssion law, was a response to doctnne exhortations. Neither the community nor the State treasure can rejcct the inheritancc rccdvcd by statutory succcssion (Art. 1023 § I k.c.).

The provisions on testament, comprised in Title III. were amended in 1996 and then in 2002 with regard to the form of allograph testament (Art. 951 k.c.) in that the enumeration of public scrvants, who partidpate in drafting such a testament, was adjusted to the new structure of the local goscrnmcnt. The rcgulation of notarial form of a testament (Art. 950 k.c.) was also changcd. due to the fact that in 1991 new rcgulation on notarial activities was adopted and private notary officcs were introduced mstead of the public ones. The new rcgulation of notary activities causcd as well a changc in the provisions on the form of declaration of acceptance or rcjection (Art. 1018 § 3 k.c.) and in the provisions of civil procedurę in succcssion raatters. Among the provisions of Title III on lcgacy the rcquirc* ment of State agcncy*s conscnt on acccpting the legaty by a non-statc legał person (Art. 1013 k.c.) was abolished.

In Titie IV regarding legitimatc portion of an inheritancc a provision referring to assessing the valuc of a donation was changcd. due to the presious modifications in the relevant jurisprudcnce, which rcflected tbc infiation cxisting in Poland in the late eightics. A similar changc was introduced in the same time and with the same motivation to the provisions on dislribution of an inheritancc, in Title X (Art. 1042 § 2 k.c.).

Up to now. no changcs have bcen introduced in the provision$ on ascenainmcnt of the acquisition of inheritancc and the protcction of successors (Title VI), liability for inheritancc dcbts (Title VII) and provisions on contracts regarding the inheritancc i.e. the possibility of repudiation of the inhentance by a successor and alicnation of the inheritancc (Title IX). With regard to the rcgulation of responsibility for inheritancc dcbts, it should be mentioncd that the jurisprudcnce is of the opinion that the pnnciplc of unlimited liability for inheritancc dcbts (when the successor madc no declaration of acccpting the inheritancc cum bcne/icio inveniam) can be boun-ded, should the principlcs of community lifc dcmand so.

As it can be scen from Ihis short review, the changcd in the “univcrsaT succcssion law, cncompasscd in Titlcs I-IX of Book 4 of the Civil Codc did not have a fundamcntal charactcr. Quite oppositc is the situation of the spccific provisions conceming the succcssion of farms (Title X). The changc carried out in 1990 totally etiminated nationalization dements therefrom. Tbc reąuircmcnts poscd to the statutory successors inheriting a farm. Thosc provisions lost their binding force with ihc judgment of the Constitulional nbunal of 31“ January 2001 with regard to inheritancc from dcccdents, who died after that datę. Within this casc The Tribunal examincd as well