
The aim of this paper is to examine the concept of unlawfulness as the main premise of the tort liability of public authorities carrying out control activities. Therefore, the following considerations are intended to determine the relationship between the general provision of Art. 417 of the Civil Code and the seemingly more specific provisions of Art. 46 (1) and (2) of the Entrepreneurs' Act. The analysis carried out shows that the latter provisions refer only to the above-mentioned provision of the Civil Code. Subsequently, it is necessary to answer the question concerning the interpretation of the illegality in the light of Art. 417 of the Civil Code. According to the prevailing opinion, illegality should be understood only as a violation of positive law. It does not cover the violation of rules derived from other sources, such as the principles of social coexistence or good faith. As a result, the professional seems to enjoy a relatively narrow scope of protection against unlawful control activities. Therefore, the article argues for a greater emphasis on principles rather than focusing mainly on rules related to the activities in question. This perspective may have a positive effect on the protection of entrepreneurs within the current interpretation of the illegality under Art. 417 of the Civil Code.