In a recent decision, Pl. ÚS 23/24, the Constitutional Court addressed an important issue regarding the valuation of contributions to joint marital property, which has a significant impact on how property is divided after divorce. This ruling clarified the interpretation of Section 742(2) of the Civil Code and corrected the previous approach taken by the Supreme Court, which was found to be inconsistent with the intent of the legislature.
The Dispute over Valuation
The case concerned the division of joint marital property after divorce. The petitioner had used funds acquired before marriage to finance joint property. In 1990, he sold a house that he solely owned and, together with his then-wife, purchased other properties. These properties later became part of the joint marital property, even though they were financed exclusively by the petitioner.
The Supreme Court refused to value the petitioner’s contributions, arguing that no agreement on valuation existed between the spouses. This interpretation limited the application of Section 742(2) of the Civil Code, which governs the valuation of contributions based on changes in the property’s value.
The Constitutional Court’s Position
The Constitutional Court overturned the decisions of both the Supreme Court and the Regional Court, clearly stating that the valuation of contributions under Section 742(2) does not require an agreement between the spouses. This interpretation was deemed inconsistent with the plain wording and intent of the legislature. The Constitutional Court emphasized that the rule on valuation is based on the principle of enrichment rather than compensation for damages, as explained in the Civil Code’s explanatory report.
The judges also highlighted the limits of judicial lawmaking, which must not exceed the boundaries set by the Constitution. According to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court’s approach improperly modified the statutory rule on valuation and infringed upon the petitioner’s protected rights.
Implications of the Decision
The Constitutional Court’s decision introduces an important change in the understanding of marital property relations. It reaffirms automatic valuation of contributions without requiring an agreement between spouses, potentially affecting numerous future disputes over the division of joint marital property.
The Regional Court must now reconsider the case, applying Section 742(2) in accordance with its plain wording and the original intent of the legislature. This approach strengthens legal certainty and ensures that judicial decisions remain within constitutionally defined limits.