Journal of Business Law 10/2024

The paper aims to evaluate the possibilities of using digital technology for transferring participation rights in companies. The authors shall indicate new European legal provisions concerning the transfer of cryptoassets, in particular security tokens. Furthermore, the paper includes the analysis of the admissibility of tokenization of shares in private and public limited companies and other participation rights. Final remarks shall reveal the trend in the amendment of law in domestic legal orders in using digital technology for transferring securities.

The aim of this study was to present research results on the durability of projects in the context of EU and national regulations in force both in the financial perspectives for 2014–2020 and 2021–2027. In both analysed programming periods, the legal basis for the principle of durability is provided by EU regulations, i.e. Art. 71 of Regulation 1303/2013 and Art. 65 of Regulation 2021/1060. The main disadvantage of these regulations is the use of a phrase that allows for a violation of the principle of durability in a situation where a change that significantly affects the nature, objectives or conditions of implementation of the project may lead to a violation of the original objectives of the project. The consequence of this construction of the provisions referred to is the possibility of assigning full responsibility to the beneficiaries for failure to maintain the durability period in the event of only a probability that such a change actually occurred. In its jurisprudence, the Supreme Administrative Court expressed the view that in certain situations resulting in a violation of the principle of durability, the refund of a specific amount of project funding from EU funds should be waived.

The study analyses three separate factual situations, covered by the provision of Article 57, paragraph 1 of the Energy Law (p.e.), which fulfil the prerequisites of illegal collection of fuels or energy: collection without a contract, bypassing the meter or by tampering with the meter. The authors, based on dogmatic research, case law and practical experience, pose and undertake to prove two theses revealing the inadequacy of the current regulation. Firstly, the current regulations do not sufficiently protect suppliers in pursuing claims against the person committing illegal consumption, and secondly, the prerequisites exonerating the consumer from liability (an acute fine) are generally impossible to prove, which does not meet the standard of protection of the rights of the subject, which is generally weaker than the supplier, and harms the general perception of justice. As a result, the authors proposed a new wording of Article 57(1) p.e. and the justification for the change in the law. It is the intention of the authors to formulate a precise framework of the recipient's obligations, the observance of which allows the recipient to meet the due diligence benchmark, taking into account the self-interest of the recipient and the supplier.

The paper is a contribution to the ongoing discussion regarding the issue of withdrawing permits to run a generally accessible pharmacies in the context of exceeding of so-called concentration limits. In the study, authors claim that in the period between coming into force of the regulation "Pharmacy for Pharmacist" ("apteka dla aptekarza" - 2017) until the amendment of art. 99 of the Pharmaceutical Law of 2023, there was no legal basis for withdrawal by public authorities a permit to run pharmacy due to the exceeding concentration limits. What is more, authors claim that in particular article 37ap of the Pharmaceutical Law could not be considered legal grounds for such actions. Only after the amendment of article 99 of the Pharmaceutical Law (by Act of 13 July 2023 amending the Act on export insurances guaranteed by the State Treasury and certain other acts), possibility of applying sanctions towards entrepreneur who exceeded concentration limits, was introduced to the legal system.

Antitrust authorities face the challenge of adapting traditional legal frameworks to the dynamically changing realities of digital markets. Given the unique characteristics of these markets, a flexible interpretation of traditional principles may be crucial, allowing for the adequate application of Article 102 TFEU in a manner that reflects the intent of this provision. This article examines whether online platforms – viewed as digital infrastructure (applications, websites) that enable businesses to reach customers – can, under certain circumstances, be considered essential facilities. The analysis will focus on behaviours involving the refusal of access to this infrastructure, which must meet the stringent criterion of indispensability.

The subject of this study is to assess the legal nature of the obligations imposed on the entity managing the register of shareholders of a non-public joint-stock company in case of the entity's justified doubts regarding the legality and authenticity of the documents justifying the entry into the register. The starting point for the considerations undertaken is the tension visible in the Commercial Companies Code between the sparse code regulation of the obligation to resolve reasonable doubts and the extensive nature of the function that the legislator assigns to the entity managing the register of shareholders in the proceeding for the entry into the register, which seems to go beyond the narrowly understood registration function. The research on the scope of the obligation to resolve justified doubts in the Code, as well as the practice of applying this obligation by entities managing registers of shareholders, justify the conclusion that this practice is contrary to the legislator's intentions, and the function that the legislator assigns to the entity managing the register of shareholders is not implemented in practice.

The voted resolution concerns the possibility for a legal person to demand pecuniary compensation for violation of personal rights. The Supreme Court assumed that Art. 448 § 1 of the Civil Code applies to legal persons accordingly. As a result, the means of protection of personal rights available to all civil law entities are the same. The approving comment on this resolution emphasized the consequences of violating personal rights for the functioning of a legal person in the socioeconomic space. Attention was paid to the systemic change in the regulation of the manner of fulfilling the obligation to submit a declaration of will in the event of violation of personal rights. It was emphasized that excluding the possibility of granting pecuniary compensation to a legal person would make the protection of its personal rights illusory and insufficient.