The Supreme Court ruled that acquisitive prescription does not deprive the owner of the right to claim remuneration for the use of real estate in the period preceding acquisitive prescription. The ruling represents a fundamental change in the current understanding of acquisitive prescription and its relationship to so-called claims supplementing a claim for recovery. Author disagrees with the position taken by the Supreme Court. First of all, he argues that it blurs the boundaries between the original and derivative methods of acquiring ownership and makes them similar. He also points out that the ‘new understanding’ of the nature of acquisitive prescription (its ratio legis) proposed by the Supreme Court also calls into question the principle of ‘gratuitousness’ of this primary method of acquiring ownership. The commentator formulates numerous further arguments and calls for the intervention of the legislator to make changes in the area of acquisitive prescription, which are certainly already necessary.