Abstract
The purpose of the gloss is to analyse the impact of the amendment to the provisions on atypical recourse within the framework of compulsory motor insurance on the possibility of exercising this right in a situation where the legal basis for the insurer’s claim did not exist at the time of the accident, but already existed at the time of payment of compensation. The Supreme Court, citing only the legal nature of atypical recourse, took the position that the law in force at the time of compensation payment is applicable. The author does not share the decision. In the gloss, she presents numerous arguments in favour of the need to apply the old law, i.e. the law in force at the time of the accident, and concerning in particular the intertemporal rules and constitutional principles.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
