Abstract

The discussed regulations of epidemic legislation relating to civil law institutions interfere with the basic principle of the law of obligations, i.e. the contractual freedom. The adopted solutions should be assessed as extraordinary in a state of emergency, because an epidemic is a state of natural disaster. The state of epidemic fits both the concept of force majeure and the rebus sic stantibus clause. Thus, statutory interference in contractual relations is justified when it is required by a significant, extraordinary change of circumstances, and it is otherwise impossible to achieve the assumed goals. Therefore, this interference must fall within the limits of the principle of proportionality, and its aim should be to ensure a fair distribution of burdens between the contracting parties, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the principle of equity and, on the other, maintaining an appropriate economic balance between the performances of both parties.