Invisible violence

A problem that officially does not exist

Men tend to be ashamed to report that they have experienced acts of violence by women, fearing ridicule, accusations that they are clumsy or weak if they allow ‘a woman to beat them’. The position of the woman, the violent woman, can be all the stronger if the stereotypes prevail that the woman, as usually physically weaker, does not attack the man, only the law of the stronger operates in the home, and the so-called weak sex is the peaceful guardian of the hearth of the household with a central role in parenting. And once it appears that a man is experiencing assault from his wife, he should put up with it for the sake of the family. It is, after all, their temporary problems and an internal matter.... The reactions marginalising physical violence against men can unfortunately be encountered already at the stage of reporting a crime, but also in court, as the lawyers of our law firm have experienced in their practice.

Addressing domestic violence

Underestimating the problems of physical violence can end in tragedy. Meanwhile, its use is a criminal offence and the victim of violence has real means of protection under the law. The Act on Prevention of Domestic Violence defines domestic violence as a single or repeated intentional act or omission, using physical, psychological or economic advantage, violating the rights or personal goods of a person suffering domestic violence. A form of domestic violence includes physical violence and other forms of violence usually accompany it.

A person experiencing domestic violence is provided with free assistance, e.g. in the form of psychological counselling. He or she can also visit any doctor free of charge to request a medical certificate for the injuries suffered or be provided with a safe haven in a specialist support centre for victims of domestic violence. Finally, on the basis of the Act, the ‘Blue Card’ procedure, i.e. actions undertaken and carried out by representatives of organisational units of social assistance, the police, health protection, municipal committees for solving alcohol problems and other units in connection with a justified suspicion of domestic violence, may also serve men. The initiation of the ‘Blue Cards’ procedure does not require the consent of the person experiencing violence.

According to the Annex to the 2022 Report on the Implementation of the National Programme for the Prevention of Family Violence, the number of men experiencing domestic violence included in this year's actions under the ‘Blue Card’ procedure was 16,901, of which 3,333 were elderly and 1,447 were disabled, but of course it is difficult to assess the full scale of the phenomenon. In comparison, in 2022, the ‘Blue Card’ was established by 75,512 women.

The law further stipulates that if a violent person cohabits with a violent person and makes cohabitation particularly burdensome by using violence, the violent person may request that the court oblige the violent householder to leave the jointly occupied flat and its immediate surroundings or prohibit him or her from entering the flat and its immediate surroundings. The court has an instructive deadline to rule on such a case within one month from the date of the request.

The provisions of the Police Act further provide for the power of a police officer to intervene immediately. A police officer may issue an order to a person using domestic violence, as defined in the Act, who poses a threat to the life or health of the person suffering such violence, to immediately leave the jointly occupied dwelling and its immediate surroundings and a restraining order to stay away from the jointly occupied dwelling and its immediate surroundings.

Offence of abuse

The statutory definition of domestic violence does not fully coincide with the elements of abuse included in the Criminal Code. In its basic type, this offence consists in physical or mental abuse of a person closest to the offender or of another person in a permanent or transitory relationship of dependence on the offender and is punishable by imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years. According to CSO data, the percentage of male victims of the crime of bullying increased steadily between 2015 and 2021.

This crime is prosecuted ex officio, although according to the 2022 conclusions of the Court Watch Poland Foundation, this is largely a fiction. As many as 83% of the criminal abuse cases analysed by the above-mentioned foundation were reported by the victim himself, while 72% of the cases started with police intervention.

Already in pre-trial proceedings, the court may order a suspect, i.e. a person against whom a decision on presenting charges has been issued, to temporarily leave the premises occupied jointly with the wronged party and his/her immediate vicinity or prohibit him/her from approaching the wronged party at a specified distance. This measure shall be applied if there is a reasonable fear that the suspect will again commit a violent offence against the victim, in particular if he or she threatens to do so. An injunction is issued in order to safeguard the proper course of the proceedings when the evidence collected indicates a high probability that the suspect has abused a cohabiting person (this is known as a preventive measure).

Dissolution of marriage

When violence is used in a marriage, there is most often a complete and permanent breakdown of cohabitation, which is a positive ground for filing for divorce. When referring to the breakdown, one must have in mind a state in which all ties between the spouses, i.e. physical, spiritual, emotional and economic ties, have ceased. Bodily injury or damage to health may be an intrinsic cause of a breakdown of the marriage, sufficient to consider it complete and permanent. The courts must respect the fact that physical violence by wives against husbands can also be the sole cause of a breakdown. Already in the ruling of the Supreme Court of 7.11.1950, C 262/50, PiP 1951, z. 8-9, p. 425, it was stated that ‘the fact that the plaintiff was severely beaten by the defendant must be regarded as a valid reason for the breakdown of the marital relationship of the parties caused by the defendant’.

The court in a divorce judgment may decide to evict the former spouse on the application of the other spouse. This only happens in exceptional cases where one spouse's grossly reprehensible, culpable behaviour makes cohabitation impossible, e.g. precisely because of violence. Eviction can only be applied for if the right to housing does not belong exclusively to the personal property of the evicted spouse.

Eviction of a cohabiting spouse

In a divorce case, the spouse requesting eviction will only obtain this protection if the divorce has been decreed and provided that the exceptional circumstances justifying the eviction order described above have been demonstrated, which is why the spouse may also apply in a separate action to evict the other spouse from the joint dwelling under Art. 13(2) of the Act of 21 June 2001 on the protection of tenants' rights, the housing stock of municipalities and amendments to the Civil Code (hereinafter the “u.o.p.l.”), also during the proceedings in a divorce case in which no demand for eviction was made (the above is in line with the Supreme Court Resolution of 12.06.2008 II CZP 41/08). Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, a roommate may bring an action for the court to order the eviction of a spouse, divorced spouse or other roommate of the same premises if the latter by his/her grossly reprehensible conduct makes cohabitation impossible. The provision applies only to such premises which the spouses occupy jointly as tenants within the meaning of Article 2(1)(1) of the a.o.p.l., i.e. as lessees of the premises or persons using the premises on the basis of a legal title other than ownership.