The gist of the judgement was approved by the commentators, but its reasoning was criticised as inconsistent. Agnieszka Świstak, who wrote a commentary of the judgement, noticed that the Court drew on the provisions applying to incidental control of contractual clauses together with those applying to abstract control of standard clauses. The Court held that the provisions of the Act on the Protection of Certain Consumer Rights and Liability for Damage Caused by an Unsafe Product of 2 March 2000 which amended the Civil Code (introducing to it the provisions implementing the Unfair Contract Terms Directive) apply not only to contracts concluded after 1 July 2000 when the Act came into force, but also to contracts concluded (but not executed) earlier (according to Article 21 of the Act). However, the Court also pointed out that by virtue of Article 479.39 of the Code of Civil Procedure amended by the Act on the protection of certain consumer rights and liability for an unsafe product, proceedings cannot be brought after the period of 6 months since the defendant ceased the use of the clauses has passed. It was clear that in this case the proceedings were brought after the deadline. The problem is that, according to Agnieszka Świstak, Article 21 of the Act applies only to incidental control, and Articles 479.36 to 479.45 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply only to abstract control of standard clauses.
Although this confusion does not affect the interpretation of any provisions which implemented the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, it indicates lack of understanding of the differences between the incidental control (known before the implementation) and the abstract control (introduced by the Act on the protection of certain consumer rights and liability for an unsafe product).