This article analyses the relations between the principles of liability for the joint property of spouses under art. 41 of the Family and Guardianship Code (k.r.o.) and the regulations of bankruptcy law (art. 124 pr.up.), focusing on the conflict between the protection of family property and the effective satisfaction of the creditors of one of the spouses. Using the formal-dogmatic, historical method and the analysis of case law, it has been shown that the applicable provisions do not ensure coherence between the axiological postulate of protecting the marital community and the priority of satisfying the claims of creditors. The research focused on institutions such as the management of joint property, liability for the obligations of one of the spouses and mechanisms securing the interests of creditors (including art. 52 k.r.o.). It was indicated that declaring bankruptcy of the debtor leads to excessive interference in the property interests of the family, disturbing the balance between the protection of the marital community and the legitimate claims of the creditor. The article proves the need to revise the regulations of bankruptcy law in order to better harmonize them with the principles of k.r.o. The conclusions formulated emphasize the need for a model combining family protection with the effectiveness of bankruptcy proceedings.

The subject of the considerations of this article is the  issue of mixed bankruptcy ability, the essence of which,  in general, boils down to the possibility of initiating (in  the circumstances specified in Articles 8 and 9 of  bankruptcy law), at the request of the creditor,  bankruptcy proceedings against a natural person not  conducting business activity when the rule is to initiate  such proceedings only at the debtor's request. This  legal structure under the legal status prior to March 24,  2020 raised legitimate controversy, especially as to  whether at the same time the right to file a bankruptcy  petition is available to both the creditor and the  debtor. Another debatable issue was the possible  collision of applications submitted simultaneously by  the creditor and the debtor. So, did either of these  applications have priority, or did both of them  constitute a common ground for opening bankruptcy  proceedings? The aim of the article is therefore an  attempt to answer the question whether the problems  posed in this respect by the current legal status are  valid under the bankruptcy law amended on  24/03/2020. The article will use the formal-dogmatic  and historical method.

In the current legal status, the debt relief procedure is available to natural persons irrespective of whether they are entrepreneurs or do not conduct business activity. The amendment to the provisions of bankruptcy law made on March 24, 2020 also unified the purpose of entrepreneurial and consumer bankruptcy. Therefore, the question maybe asked whether this is a purely editorial procedure or whether it also includes a substantive change. An attempt to aswer this question will be analyzed in this article. The research method used in the analysis of the subject will be the formal, dogmatic and historical method.