Journal of Business Law 07/2025

Ensuring the quality of water intended for human consumption is crucial for the health of consumers. For this reason, a system of external supervision of water quality by the authorities of the State Sanitary Inspectorate was introduced. The administrative nature of the supervision allows it to qualify as an area of administrative (sanitary) police activity. The model of water quality supervision is based on the application by the bodies of the Inspectorate of general regulations on sanitary supervision and specific instruments applicable to water quality supervision. Analysis of the various institutions aimed at ensuring the health safety of water made it possible to determine the insufficient degree of regulation of water quality supervision and the design flaws of supervisory instruments.

Imposing various levies, where financial burdens are shifted to undertakings, is one of the evolving forms of funding various activities by the State. They are highly challenging to assess for potential State aid because, while it is prima facie apparent that they may confer an advantage for selected market players due to bypassing the government budget, they may not meet the required condition of involving State resources as interpreted in state aid acquis. Measures must comprise State resources to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the Court – contrary to the literal wording of the treaty’s provision – regards State resources and imputability to the State as cumulative rather than alternative conditions. In a series of ruling from September 2024 concerning compulsory energy surcharges, the Court formulated two alternative tests to determine when levies bypassing the government budget may constitute State resources. In this context, the author presents and will attempt to justify the position that these new jurisprudential developments are, to use the title’s licentia poetica, attempts to mend a self-inflicted wound. The tests are ambiguous and arbitrary, ultimately leading to questionable interpretations. None of these interpretive problems and the resulting gap in State aid control would exist had Article 107(1) TFEU been interpreted literally – as comprising alternative criteria of State resources and imputability.

Public land transport enables citizens, especially those without a car, to travel to places of work, education or leisure. It is, therefore, essential to fulfil society’s social, economic and cultural needs. It is also vital for implementing the European climate policy. However, many transport services are unprofitable. They can only be performed by establishing a Public Service Obligation and compensation for their provision. These issues are regulated by EU law. In practice, however, they raise many doubts. In particular, it is unclear whether the compensation must cover all the operator’s costs (the total net cost of performing the service) and whether the restrictive methods for calculating compensation (specified in the annexe to Regulation 1370/2007) should always (in every case) be applied. The aim of this article is to answer these questions based on the latest rulings of the CJEU. Moreover, the article aims to explain whether the provisions of Polish law regulating the issue of compensation are in line with EU law.

This article deals with the commercial nature of the consumer pawn loan agreement, regulated by the new Consumer Pawn Loan Act dated 14.04.2023. The legislator allows only entrepreneurs engaged in pawnbroking activities, i.e. limited liability companies and joint-stock companies entered in the register kept by the Financial Supervision Authority, to conclude such agreements. However, the provision defining a consumer pawn loan agreement indicates that any entrepreneur can be a party to the agreement. An analysis of the contradictory provisions of the new law leads to the conclusion that a consumer pawn loan agreement entered into by an entrepreneur who is not a pawnbroker is valid and subject to the provisions of the new law. However, the sanction of a free loan may be applied to it due to the lack of indication of a registration number in the agreement, unless the agreement was concluded by an entrepreneur during the transitional period indicated in Article 57 u.k.p.l.

This publication is part of a comparative study of solutions adopted in the Czech Republic and Poland concerning the taxation of individual business activity with income tax. Despite the fact that both countries are direct neighbors and joined the European Union at the same time, they are assessed completely differently in terms of the state’s attitude towards individual entrepreneurs. The main purpose of this publication is not only to describe the specificity of Czech solutions in this area and compare them with Polish regulations, but also to focus on solutions that have been developed by Czech and Polish legislators. In particular, attention will be paid to the lump sum tax in force in the Czech Republic for over three years and the rules for deducting lump sum expenses by entrepreneurs, the amount of which is distinguished in the international arena. Both of these solutions influence the formation of a phenomenon characteristic of Czech tax law, which is the Švarcsystem. The methodology used by the author refers to the functional approach of the comparative legal method, which refers to the comparison of selected aspects of different legal systems and aims to learn and understand the law in a much broader context. This study can also be treated as a first step towards further in-depth analysis and research, and thus the possible application by the Polish legislator of the structures and solutions present in Czech tax law.

The subject of this publication is to determine whether it is permissible to apply Art. 491 of the Civil Code in the event of a creditor’s delay within the meaning of Art. 486 § 2 of the Civil Code. This issue is not only theoretical, but above all practical. It is not uncommon for a creditor to evade fulfilling its obligations. In the event of a negative answer to the question asked, the debtor, e.g. a contractor for construction works, would be deprived of the right to withdraw from the legal relationship (in the absence of a different contractual provision) pursuant to Art. 491 of the Civil Code. As a consequence, the debtor (contractor) would still be obliged to perform the performance, i.e. incur construction costs for the period of waiting for the handover of the construction site, including labor costs, purchase of materials, rental of machinery and equipment, despite the fact that the creditor (investor) does not perform the obligations that condition the fulfillment of the benefit by him, e.g. he does not hand over the construction site. This problem is not resolved by the regulation of Art. 486 § 1 of the Civil Code, which does not grant the debtor in this case the right to withdraw from the legal relationship arising from the contract (see Art. 486 § 1 of the Civil Code). Despite the important nature of the analysed issue, it has not yet been the subject of broader considerations in the doctrine and jurisprudence.

This commentary addresses the concept of an organised part of an enterprise, the assessment of the Supreme Court’s position on this matter, and the resolution of the case in light of the factual circumstances underlying the judgment. The evaluation of the ruling is not uniform. The Supreme Court’s position that an organised part of an enterprise satisfies the criteria outlined in Article 551 of the Civil Code is reasonable. However, the statement made by the Supreme Court that, in the case of the transfer of such an organized part, it is necessary to list the individual elements that constitute it, has been met with criticism. This requirement has led to significant reservations about the judgment’s implications, which are analysed in detail in this commentary.