In its decision of 18 November 2025 (III PSK 56/24), the Supreme Court once again recalled that the abuse of rights clause provided for in Article 8 of the Labour Code is of an exceptional nature and cannot be used as a universal means of challenging the unfavorable effects of applicable provisions on employees.
The case involved a teacher who sought judicial recognition of her appointment, compensation for damages, and correction of payroll documentation. The key issue was the statute of limitations for claims and the possibility of declaring the employer's statute of limitations defense as inconsistent with the principles of social coexistence.
What is abuse of law?
According to Article 8 of the Labor Code, one may not exercise a right in a manner that is contrary to its socio-economic purpose or the principles of social coexistence. This provision is one of the general clauses, which constitute vague phrases in regulations that refer to values and norms outside of legal regulations
The Supreme Court emphasized, however, that this construction is permissible only in specific situations. It is necessary to demonstrate specific circumstances of an ethical, moral, or customary nature that would justify denying legal protection to an action formally compliant with the law.
Abuse of law and violation of law
One of the most important elements of the judgment in question is the clear distinction between abuse of law and violation of law.
The Supreme Court indicated that Article 8 of the Labour Code applies only to situations in which an entity exercises its right in accordance with its formal content, but the manner of exercising this right is contrary to the principles of social coexistence or its socio-economic purpose.
This provision, however, does not apply to cases of ordinary violations of substantive law. In other words, Article 8 of the Labor Code is not intended to correct errors in the application of the law or to replace other legal remedies.
The statute of limitations and the principles of social coexistence
In the case at hand, the complainant argued that the employer’s raising of the limitation objection should be considered contrary to the principles of social coexistence.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this position. It noted that simply citing Article 8 of the Labor Code is insufficient. The party must demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the application of this clause. In the Court's opinion, the complainant failed to present arguments that would support the conclusion that the employer's exercise of its right to raise the statute of limitations constituted an abuse of law.
Judicial discretion
The Supreme Court also recalled that the assessment of whether a specific case constitutes an abuse of law falls within the realm of judicial discretion. This means that the court hearing the case conducts an individual assessment of all the factual circumstances.
Cassation review of such an assessment is limited. The Supreme Court may intervene only in cases of particularly flagrant and obvious violations of law.
The significance of the ruling for labor law practice
The Supreme Court's ruling has significant practical implications for both employees and employers. It confirms established case law that Article 8 of the Labor Code cannot be treated as a general instrument for overriding the effects of the statute of limitations or other unfavorable consequences of legal provisions.
The abuse of law clause remains an exceptional provision, applied only in situations where a formally lawful action would lead to consequences that are blatantly contrary to fundamental social and moral norms. At the same time, the ruling reiterates that demonstrating such circumstances requires detailed argumentation and the identification of specific facts justifying the application of Article 8 of the Labor Code.
Summary
In its decision III PSK 56/24, the Supreme Court clearly emphasized that Article 8 of the Labour Code is exceptional in nature, concerns abuse of law, not infringement of law, may be applied only in special circumstances justified by ethical or social considerations, the assessment of the existence of an abuse of law is at the court’s discretion, and cassation review of this assessment is only possible in the case of particularly egregious errors.
The ruling is an important reminder that general clauses cannot replace existing legal regulations, but serve only as an exceptional corrective mechanism to protect against the unfair consequences of a rather formal application of the law.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of June 12, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
