Abstract

The article discusses the issue of admissibility of recognizing the “aim of an act” as a source of its retroaction. Such a possibility was questioned in the Supreme Court jurisdiction (SC judgement of 26 January 2006, II CK 374/05) despite the fact that Art. 3 of the Civil Code provides that the ban on retroaction should be derogated from not only when it follows from the wording of an act but also from its aim. The article criticises the arguments supporting the SC opinion which refer to the rule of law, the risk of arbitrariness in the judicial application of Art. 3 in fine of the Civil Code, as well as the basis for finding desuetude to the extent in which this provision is linked with the aim of a law by the possibility of its retroaction.