Abstract

In the commented Judgment the Supreme Court adopted such an interpretation of Art. 1028 of the Civil Code according to which in a situation when a nasciturus is an actual heir the notion of ,,a third party” used in that provision should not be understood as “a person from the group of statutory heirs”. The gloss provides arguments against adopting such position. It has been also raised that the analysis of the facts of the case seems to lead to a conclusion that such interpretation was not necessary for the protection of interests of an unborn child. There are many indications that the person who acquired the right forming part of the estate acted in bad faith.