Summary of debated cases

In the first case, the mother of a minor child requested an increase in maintenance from March 2020 due to the increase in living expenses after her son started secondary school in September 2021. Although the district court found that there had been a change in circumstances on both the minor's and the parents' side justifying an increase in maintenance as of September 2021, it only set the increased maintenance from March 2023, when the mother filed a motion with the court. The court relied on the decision of the regional court, according to which parents should respond promptly to changes in the minor's circumstances and not delay the filing of a motion unnecessarily. On the complainant's appeal, the regional court confirmed the district court's judgment and thus rejected the motion for retroactive maintenance.[1]

In the second case, the children were placed in the care of the father, who, due to a change in the circumstances of his minor daughter, who started high school in September 2021, filed a motion in October 2023 to increase the maintenance retroactively from the date of starting high school. Although the court acknowledged that the parents' income had increased and that the daughter's legitimate needs had increased since September 2021 due to school expenses, it considered the retroactive increase in child support to be a grossly unfair burden on the mother, as would the resulting arrears in maintenance. In this case too, the district court's decision was subsequently confirmed by the regional court.[2]

Conclusions of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court concluded in the aforementioned rulings that, if there is a proven change in the circumstances of minor children and their parents, increased maintenance should be awarded retroactively, from the moment of this change, but no longer than for a period of three years before the commencement of the proceedings, as provided for in Section 922 par. 1 in conjunction with Section 923 par. 1 of the Civil Code.

The Constitutional Court emphasised that the obligation to support a child is not only an obligation of one parent, but is based on the parental responsibility of both parents, which must be exercised with regard to the current needs of the child. The purpose of retroactively granting or increasing maintenance is to ensure adequate care for children and protection of their rights, without them being disadvantaged by the fact that the caring parent did not file a motion to increase maintenance immediately after the change in circumstances. According to the Constitutional Court, it is also irrelevant whether the filing of the motion was preceded by a request for an increase in maintenance addressed to the obligated parent. According to the Constitutional Court, these additional conditions, as applied by the general courts, are not justified in the sense of statutory regulation, if they do not result from statutory provisions and are to the detriment of the minor child.

In this context, the Constitutional Court drew attention to Article 3 par. 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which the best interests of the minor shall be a priority even when deciding on maintenance. Although the general courts found relevant changes in circumstances, they did not retroactively award higher maintenance. However, when refusing to retroactively increase maintenance, the general courts did not provide sufficient reasons that would justify an exception to the rule of retroactive award of maintenance. Ultimately, the general courts acted to the detriment of minor children and in fact “punished” them for the alleged misconduct of their parents.

The maintenance, or rather its increase, as the right of the child itself, upon a proven change in the minor's circumstances, is fundamentally granted from the relevant change in circumstances, even retroactively for a period of no more than three years from the date of commencement of proceedings. In the event that the general courts have chosen the opposite interpretation, and thus in the contested decisions have conceived the retroactive increase in maintenance as exceptional and at the same time conditional on a previous request for an increase in maintenance addressed to the obligated parent, as well as on the immediate submission of a motion upon a change in the minor's circumstances, this is not, according to the Constitutional Court, a constitutionally compliant interpretation of Section 922 par. 1 of the Civil Code.[3]

Practical implications of the Constitutional Court's findings

The Constitutional Court recalled that the retroactive award or increase of maintenance may not be automatic in all cases. Exceptions are permissible, but they must always be specifically justified and must take into account the specific circumstances of the obligated parent, the child or the caring parent. The Constitutional Court also made an appeal to parents to ideally agree on a reasonable amount of maintenance and pointed out that legal disputes often disrupt the relationship between the parent and the child.

The analyzed rulings of the Constitutional Court are of fundamental importance for the issue of retroactive award, or rather increase, of maintenance for minor children. The Constitutional Court clearly declared that the protection of children's rights and their needs must not be weakened as a result of the procedural inaction of the caring parent. The rights of minor children should always be ensured with regard to their best interests, regardless of any delay by the parent in submitting a motion for an increase in alimony.

It can be expected that the aforementioned rulings of the Constitutional Court will help to unify judicial practice and will thus be a significant step towards strengthening children's rights in the area of maintenance.

[1] cf. the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 25 September 2024, file no. I. ÚS 871/24.

[2] cf. the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 25 September 2024, file no. I. ÚS 1760/24.

[3] cf. point 52 of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 25 September 2024, file no. I. ÚS 871/24.

Source: epravo.cz