Abstract
The paper presents the critical commentary on the judgment, in which the Supreme Court classified unlawfull disposals of a co-owned item commited by a co-owner as misappropriation of someone else’s movable item. The legal assessment carried out by the Supreme Court can hardly be approved, as it is based on a widespread and yet incorrect interpretation of the concept of someone else’s item, considering it to be someone else’s property in relation to its co-owner. The behaviour in question fulfils rather the features of misappropriation of property right in the form of another co-owner’s participation in co-ownership. The Supreme Court partially based its assessment on the reasons justifying the latter legal qualification, however did not draw proper conclusions therefrom and did not decide to depart from the dominant case-law opinion.