The purpose of the article is to determine the scope of regulations shaping the situation of workers employed at offshore wind farms. The authors believe that offshore wind farms, which are floating farms (not permanently connected to the seabed), should be recognized as ships, and therefore the provisions of the Act on Work at Sea should be applied to employees working on such farms. In addition, depending on where the offshore wind farm operates, this Act will apply in whole or only in part. The article presents the differences in the legal position of employees working on offshore wind farms in particular situations. In the opinion of the authors, the described differentiation of the situation of employees depending on the construction and location of the offshore wind farm is unjustified and constitutes a violation of the principle of equality of employees, and does not provide an adequate level of protection for the various categories of employees. Therefore, the authors present de lege ferenda postulates aiming at unifying the rules of employment of workers on offshore wind farms, while taking into account the specifics of employment on this type of facilities.

The purpose of the article is to answer the question whether, with regard to the limitation period for claims arising from a contract of carriage under the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), the principle provided for in Article 118, second sentence, of the Civil Code, according to which the end of the limitation period of at least two years falls on the last day of the calendar year, should be applied. The author bases these reflections on the premise that since the CMR Convention does not regulate international road transportation comprehensively, it is necessary to apply the relevant domestic law in the unregulated area. If this were Polish law, then the application of Article 118, second sentence, of the Civil Code may be considered with regard to the issue of the statute of limitations. The article presents both arguments for and against such a view. Ultimately, the author comes to the conclusion that the mechanism for extending the limitation period to the end of the calendar year should not be applied to the limitation periods provided for in the CMR Convention.