Journal of Business Law 05/2025

The subject of this article is the type of relations between entities participating in administrative relations. For many years, one view, developed in the 1950s, clearly dominated in this respect, according to which the relationship between entities participating in administrative relations was such that the "people's" state, having a monopoly on the so-called empire, is an entity that always dominates over other entities that are subject to this authority in legal relations of this type. The above-mentioned authority was treated as a source of the state's exclusive competence to establish administrative and legal relations with entities subject to this authority: both natural persons and entrepreneurs. The author of the article questions the thesis about the monopoly of the state, and other entities of public authority, on the possibility of unilaterally establishing, modifying and terminating administrative and legal relations. He claims that legal relations established on the basis of the norms of broadly understood public law have the nature of legal relations of the subordination type. However, according to the author of the article, it is not as it was previously believed that only administrative entities have the competence to establish this type of legal relations. The legislator also provided administered entities, i.e. private entities, with such competences. As a consequence, it may be that sometimes the legal relations discussed are established unilaterally by the administering entities, and other times – by the administered entities.

The issue of the parent company's liability for damages resulting from a reduction in the value of a subsidiary's share or shares is a source of interesting and practically significant judicial problems. As part of the amendment Commercial Companies Code, the legislator provided for the obligation of the parent company to compensate for the damage suffered by the partners or shareholders of the subsidiary, but did not specify the methods of redressing it. There are general rules in this regard. The basis for the injured person's claim is the provision of Art. 2113 § 1 of the Commercial Companies Code, but the method of redressing the damage is determined by the provisions of the Civil Code, especially the provisions of Art. 361 CC and Art. 362 CC. They require legal analysis from the point of view of compensation for damage consisting in reducing the value of a share or shares of a subsidiary company, which justifies dealing with this topic.

The subject of the authors' analyses in this article is the issue of requirements that must be met when publishing information recommending or suggesting an investment strategy in social media. The specificity of communication using technology that enables the exchange of various content via websites and mobile applications (e.g. social networking sites) creates special challenges for their users. This applies to both, the persons publishing, who must comply with the rules specified in the law (including those concerning counteracting unlawful behavior on financial markets) in order not to expose themselves to sanctions, as well as the recipients of the content, who may have difficulty recognizing the truthfulness of the information posted and be subject to information manipulation. This implies certain consequences for market confidence and investor protection. With this in mind, the study indicates and discusses the requirements that investment recommendations posted in social media must meet and the consequences of violating legally established obligations.

Under administrative law, there is no legal definition of either the term "special territorial division" or "special self-government". Using the existing body of doctrine, in particular that relevant to the current normative reality, it is possible to develop definitions of these terms. Special territorial divisions may be made primarily to define the territorial scope of political-organisational government administration activities, but also for other territorial organisational units performing public tasks, including for the purposes of territorial organisational units of special self-government, but only those performing public tasks. For this reason, special territorial divisions are already in place within the special self-government, but made only for the purposes of certain professional self-governments.

The contractor violates its obligation by refusing to sign a public procurement contract. This may give rise to exclusion from subsequent public procurement procedures, provided that the circumstances of the refusal indicate that the contractor's breach of obligation was serious. An example of such a situation is the evasion of concluding a contract within the meaning derived from the Supreme Court's case law on article 390 § 1 and 2 of the Civil Code, i.e. an unfounded and conscious action or omission aimed at not concluding the final contract, or at least accepting such an effect. Such an interpretation of art. 109.1.5 of the Public Procurement Law will allow for a systemic and proportionate response to the cases when contractors evade a contract's conclusion, which negates the expected effect of selecting the offer in the public procurement procedure.

This article analyses the relations between the principles of liability for the joint property of spouses under art. 41 of the Family and Guardianship Code (k.r.o.) and the regulations of bankruptcy law (art. 124 pr.up.), focusing on the conflict between the protection of family property and the effective satisfaction of the creditors of one of the spouses. Using the formal-dogmatic, historical method and the analysis of case law, it has been shown that the applicable provisions do not ensure coherence between the axiological postulate of protecting the marital community and the priority of satisfying the claims of creditors. The research focused on institutions such as the management of joint property, liability for the obligations of one of the spouses and mechanisms securing the interests of creditors (including art. 52 k.r.o.). It was indicated that declaring bankruptcy of the debtor leads to excessive interference in the property interests of the family, disturbing the balance between the protection of the marital community and the legitimate claims of the creditor. The article proves the need to revise the regulations of bankruptcy law in order to better harmonize them with the principles of k.r.o. The conclusions formulated emphasize the need for a model combining family protection with the effectiveness of bankruptcy proceedings.

The subject of this gloss on the Supreme Court's order of 19 January 2024, II CSKP 897/22, is the examination of the correctness of the Supreme Court's recognition of the lack of funds for arbitration proceedings as the inoperative arbitration agreement in light of Article 1165 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The analysis of this subject requires, first of all, an assessment of the relationship between the arbitration clause and the constitutional guarantee that is the right to a court, as well as the relationship between the loss of the effect of arbitration clause (Article 1165 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and the loss of its force (Article 1168 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Although Polish legal doctrine includes studies on this subject, it has not received particular attention. The analysis of the problem leads to a critical view of the Supreme Court's decision. In the author's opinion, the factual circumstances that the Supreme Court deemed as rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable should not be classified as such.