There is therefore no legal basis or need to require that the liability under Article 417 of the Civil Code should arise only from a manifest breach of the law (see, among many other rulings, the Supreme Court's judgments of: 8 January 2002, I CKN 581/99; 6 February 2002, V CKN 1248/00; 18 June 2018, V CSK 422/09; 19 April 2012, IV CSK 406/11; 19 September 2018, ICSK 585/17; and 25 February 2022, II CSKP 173/22; the Supreme Court's resolution given by seven judges of 26 April 2006, III CZP 125/05; and the Constitutional Court's judgment of 4 December 2001, SK 18/00).

That aim cannot be achieved by making distinctions in the scale or degree of unlawfulness, as that would go beyond the scope of the provision in question and would have no statutory basis (see the Supreme Court's judgment of 26 April 2001, III CKN 966/00; the Łódź Regional Court's judgment of 22 April 2016, II Ca 177/16; see also the Supreme Court's resolution given by seven judges, cited above; and the Supreme Court's judgments: of 11 March 2008, II CSK 58/07; 20 August 2009, II CSK 68/09; and 18 June 2010, V CSK 422/09).