Pursuant to the provisions of Section 630 of the Slovak Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code”), the donor may demand the return of the gift if the recipient treats him or her or a member of his or her family in a manner that is grossly offensive to public decency. In assessing the specific conduct, it is necessary to proceed on the basis of whether the infringement is of significant intensity or whether it is a continuous infringement which, by reason of its duration, course, gravity and effect, has acquired the character of a grave infringement. However, for the purposes of the above-mentioned legal requirement, only the recipient’s actually and objectively manifested conduct is relevant. The subjective beliefs of the donor are therefore not relevant.

The donor can demand the return of the gift even if the disturbance is no longer ongoing, but the offence against public decency occurred in the past. The donor’s right in question is subject to a general limitation period of three years, starting from the time when the donor was able to exercise the right for the first time.

According to current case law, family members of the donor within the meaning of Section 630 of the Civil Code may be natural persons who, considering all the circumstances of the individual case, are related to the donor by kinship or a similar relationship, if the donor considers the damage caused to one of them by the donee to be his own damage.

The provisions of Section 630 of the Civil Code constitute a special form of termination of a contractual relationship established by a gift. The donor asserts the right to return the gift by means of a unilateral legal act addressed to the donee, in which the donor is requested to return the gift; only by taking back the gift in this way does the donor have the right to demand its return. The Civil Code does not expressly prescribe the form of the above-mentioned legal act, but it can be inferred from the general provisions on legal acts that the request for the return of the gift must be made in writing. The request for the return of the gift in question must express the donor’s intention that the donee return the object of the gift to the donor.

As already mentioned, the donor has the right to demand the return of the gift only if the recipient behaves towards him/her and his/her family members in a manner that is grossly contrary to public morality. In this context, however, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 3 Cdo 53/2006, which states that the concept of good morals is not defined in the law and that good morals should generally be regarded as a set of social, cultural and moral norms observed by a significant part of society and having the character of basic norms of behaviour. In this decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the legal relations established by the transfer of property by means of a donation contract create a situation that enjoys legal certainty and protection, and that the obligation arising from it has been assumed by the contracting parties themselves and voluntarily. This situation can no longer be disturbed by the arbitrary behaviour of the donor. Therefore, not every negative behaviour of the donee towards the donor justifies a claim for the return of the gift.

At the same time, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic of 30 June 2008, Case No. 5 Cdo 72/2008, “improper behaviour of the donor or a minor breach of morality does not entitle the donor to demand the return of the gift. The only condition for a successful recovery of the gift is behaviour on the part of the donee which, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case, can be considered a gross violation of common decency. The principle of reciprocity must be applied in assessing whether certain behaviour on the part of the recipient can be considered a gross breach of public decency. This means that the donor’s behaviour must also be taken into account and it must be assessed whether the donor himself is not behaving immorally towards the donee and whether his behaviour is the cause of the donee’s inappropriate behaviour towards him or his family members. If this were the case, the donor could not successfully demand the return of the gift because the donor’s reaction, even if inappropriate, would not be considered a gross violation of morality. It would be a case of socially undesirable communication between the giver and the receiver, which could hardly be described as a gross breach of morality on the part of the receiver. The only exception would be if the recipient’s behaviour was obviously disproportionate to that of the giver.

If the donor exercises his right of return, the legal relationship of the gift is terminated at the moment the donor’s declaration of intent enters the donee’s sphere of control. At that moment, the original legal relationship is restored, and the donee is obliged to return the gift to the donor. If the donee is no longer in possession of the gift, he is obliged to pay compensation to the donor in accordance with the principles of unjust enrichment.

The right to demand the return of the gift is one of the personal rights that expire with the death of the donor. Therefore, after the death of the donor, the heirs can no longer demand the return of the gift, even if all legal requirements have been met during the donor’s lifetime. The only exception is where the act of the donor towards the donee which led to the return of the gift took place during the donor’s lifetime.

I hope that the information in this article has been helpful, and we would be delighted to hear from you if you are interested.