Abstract

The text seeks to answer the question as to the standard of creating intertemporal norms concerning prescription periods – especially when they are of a retrospective nature. The problem has been posed against the background of the Supreme Court resolution of 21 October 2015 r., III CZP 67/15 concerning the length of the prescription of claims for tuition fees before entry into force of Art 160a.7 of the Higher Education Act of 27 July 2005. According to the intertemporal rule that accompanied the introduction of this regulation, the rule in question applied to contracts that had been concluded under the previous legal regime (providing longer prescription terms for these claims). The mechanism in question is based on retrospectivity, not retroactivity of law. From the perspective of the concept formulated in the case-law of the Constitutional Tribunal, the rule in question may be deemed as compliant with the constitutional standard as long as it remains retrospective. In other words, it should pertain only to the prescription terms which at the moment of change of law were pending or did not start yet.