Journal of Business Law 6/2020

The extraordinary conditions in which entrepreneurs must function after the state of the epidemic was declared in Poland mean a deep crisis covering the entire economy. The situation forces the legislator to shape the law of "epidemic status" and the law of "economic crisis" accordingly. In Poland, such a law was made, it was given specific content, under which various support measures for entrepreneurs were indicated, as well as the competences of the bodies and institutions designated to take actions for the sake of entrepreneurs. It is necessary to determine whether the legislator's activities were adequate to the current situation, and in particular whether appropriate legal foundations for the functioning of entrepreneurs in the epidemic conditions were created. It seems obvious that the support for entrepreneurs should be considered as a state obligation, i.e. in fact as the obligations of many entities acting on behalf of the state. It becomes important to establish a list of these entities and to determine their role in the process of supporting entrepreneurs from the point of view of the assumed effects of their activities. What is also of much significance are the premises for the state's impact on the economy in the conditions of epidemic and crisis.

The article presents the issue of maintaining the insider list referred to in Article 18 MAR in the capital group. The main research problem analysed by the authors is whether the provisions MAR constitute the legal basis for including the employees of the issuer's subsidiaries in the insider list maintained by the issuer (the parent company). In the authors' opinion, employees of subsidiaries having preferential access to inside information produced in a subsidiary should be considered as persons to be included in the insider list maintained by the issuer. The proposed interpretation is consistent with all views treating the capital group as a single economic unit, pursuing an interest that is essentially convergent for all participants of the group.

With the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on establishing a general framework for securitization and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardized securitization, and amending Directives 2009/65 / EC, 2009/138 / EC and 2011/61 / EU and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 648/2012 (Official Journal EU L 347 of 28.12.2017, pp. 35–80), hereinafter 'Regulation 2017/2402' the securitization legal status has been modified. The activities of participants in this process have been supervised. The supervision is exercised by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority. Thus, supervised entities became entities not only from traditional financial market segments: banking, capital and insurance. An important, especially for the Polish market, new obligation is reporting, the principles of which have been set out in the Regulation. This analysis concerns this obligation and the way it is supervised, including sanctioning its failure to comply.

Interest on trial costs is a new regulation in the Polish civil procedure. The solution adopted by the legislator, although going in the right direction, raises both theoretical and practical doubts. The main problem is to determine whether the interest should be included in the judgment closing the case, as part of the costs of the trial, or whether it's awarded in some other form. Answering this question implies further problems, particularly related to the challengeability of such a decision. The analysis of the provisions allows to conclude that interest forms part of the costs of the process, with all the consequences.

The article undertakes an analysis of the grounds, purpose and scope of copyright limitation in relation to works permanently displayed on publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens in so-called freedom of panorama. With regard to copyright restrictions, which constitute an exception to their absolute protection provided for in the Act, it is reasonable to specify and justify the purpose of permitted public use. The article indicates and justifies the basis for the restriction as: access to culture, stating that this concept is not the same as the definition of a cultural good. To this end, a concise interpretation of the restrictive provision was made, as well as an analysis of legal guarantees in the field of access to culture, cultural heritage, cultural heritage in legal regulations, with particular emphasis on the definition of the good of culture, indicating the lack of coherence of the concepts of the work and the good of culture.

The subject of the ruling was the legal assessment of the cassatory complaint lodged against the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw of November 30, 2018 (reference number V SA/Wa 1780/18). The controlled decision of the court of first instance went beyond the limits of its jurisdiction in the analysed case. The judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court can be considered only from a formal point of view. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed of a complaint claiming that the cassation was inadmissible. However, the way in which he did so and how he assessed the ruling of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw raise huge doubts as to the completeness of procedural regulations.