Journal of Business Law 11/2020

The purpose of the article is the interpretation of provisions regulating the functioning of the institution of liquidation deposit in companies. The article discusses the social and economic purpose of the liquidation deposit of capital companies from the perspective of the capital companies partners' (shareholders') rights, their creditors and various public values. The author states and defends the thesis that the satisfaction of the creditors or securing of their rights by the liquidation deposit is the absolute condition of the conclusion of the liquidation and deletion of capital companies from the register. What strikes is that relativization of this condition in the liquidation proceedings leads to various abuses which, depending on their specifics, should be qualified not only as an infringement of creditors' rights but also as an infringement of rule of law as well as legal certainty and trading safety. The author is in favour of such interpretation of provisions which increases efficiency of public supervision of register courts over the liquidation proceedings of capital companies.

The instrument of thin capitalization is of key importance in holding companies' international tax planning policies. This measure has been widely adopted by structures conducting cross-border business activity. That notwithstanding, shaping such policies through the use of thin capitalization requires a thorough knowledge of domestic regulations applicable in EU Member States that are concerned not only with the possibilities of employing this measure but also with the provisions limiting the use of thin capitalization. Analyzing the legal provisions on countering thin capitalization, it may be concluded that no measure offers absolute certainty that the negative consequences of the phenomenon of thin capitalization will be countered. The objective of the article is to indicate the most effective mechanisms adopted by international holding companies as well as the tax consequences that they bring about, and tax risk in particular.

The research presented in the article was inspired by recent demands to amend the Act on the ownership of premises in the context of equipping housing communities with the right to adopt resolutions on the prohibition of short-term rental of premises. These demands were argued, among others the lack of clear regulation on admissibility of adopting such resolutions as well as lack of appropriate measures to protect the rights of premises owners against infringements generated by the phenomenon of short term rental of premises. The aim of the article was therefore to respond to the validity of the arguments raised. In the first part of the article, the subject of analysis was the issue of the admissibility of adopting resolutions by housing communities prohibiting the short-term rental of premises and resolutions on increasing the burden on owners of premises rented for a short time, under the applicable regulations.. In the second part of the article, the research cover the issues of measures to protect the rights of owners of premises in a situation where neighboring premises in a building are rented for a short-term, pursuant to applicable regulations. Measures to protect the right of owners of premises, regulated in the Civil Code as well as in the Act on the ownership of premises, were discussed. They were also assessed in the context of the possibility of their use in the event of infringements generated by short-term rental of premises.

The manifestation of the institution of incompatibility of positions in the law of local self-government is, inter alia, 24f par. 2 of the Act of 8 March 1990 on Commune Self-government (u.s.g.). The principles of prevention of corruption in the local government set out in the acts are the subject of numerous critical remarks in the science of law. In particular, the relationship between art. 2 par. 6, art. 4 and art. 6 par. 1 of the Act of 21 August 1997 on Limitation of Conducting Business Activity by Persons Performing Public Functions in relation to art. 24f par. 2 u.s.g. is problematic. Problems also arise from the issue of being members of the management or control and audit authorities as well as proxies of commercial companies with the participation of legal persons of any local government units or entrepreneurs in which such persons participate, by persons indicated in art. 24f par. 2 u.s.g. Indicated specific issues was devoted to this study.

The aim of the article is to evaluate the legal solutions adopted in the Act of 13 February 2020 amending the Construction Law and some other acts in the field of legalization of unauthorized construction. The cited Act is another example of the legislator's activities aimed at reducing the number of illegal constructions in Poland. Contrary to the regulations which is currently in force, the Act creates a single, clear legalization procedure, introducing, at the same time, unknown construction law, simplified procedure for legalization the so-called old illegal constructions. Legalization is still a phenomenon negatively assessed by the legislature, combined with the obligation to pay the legalization fee. The Act lacks solutions improving the detection of illegal constructions and the execution of demolition orders. Justified juridical doubts, in the aspect of compliance with the principle of equality before the law, are also caused by the formulation of provisions devoted to the legalization of illegal constructions, in which 20 years have passed at least since the construction was completed.

The subject of the article is the amendment to The Commercial Companies Code which was in connection with the COVID-19 epidemic. The author presents the main points of the regulation. He underlines that it concerns new rules of functioning of the bodies of the capital companies. The main purpose of the amendment is to enable the functioning of capital company bodies in a remote or near remote stand.

The commented judgment concerns the possibility of considering the demolition of the facility as the subject of a construction contract. This problem, however, is related to a broader issue of significant relevance to practice — setting criteria to distinguish a construction contract from a specific work contract. The purpose of the article is to indicate the premises enabling the delimitation of both contracts, including primarily the interpretation of the concept of object and construction works. Reference was also made to the subjective scope of the construction contract and the scope of protection that the legislature provided to subcontractors for construction works. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the demolition of the facility may be the subject of the construction contract. Determining the application of the indicated provisions, however, requires examination of the contractor's performance and its subject, assessment of the investment being implemented in accordance with the requirements of the construction law, as well as the existence of a specific form of cooperation between the investor and the contractor.