Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego 02/2024

'A spirit of solidarity' in the EU energy policy (Article 194 TFEU) has raised questions about its nature and scope. It was initially treated as an abstract, purely political concept, not as a legal criterion for assessing the validity of European Union acts. Due to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), energy solidarity now constitutes a specific expression of the principle of solidarity, which is itself one of the fundamental principles of EU law. Whilst confirming the legal nature of the energy solidarity, the CJEU did not indicate how it should be applied. A certain solution seems necessary to ensure legal transparency. The multi-directional development of the EU energy policy is a challenge, as it includes – in the process of developing the internal market – not only energy security, but competitiveness, sustainable development, and in particular climate change. The energy solidarity standard is an attempt to find an adequate regulatory solution.

Death of entrepreneur causes very far reaching consequences for the existence of employment relationship, including its expiry, unless the deceased entrepreneur's enterprise is transferred to his heirs or other subjects. In 2018, the legislator introduced the new institution to the Polish legal system – successive management of an enterprise of a natural person – due to facilitate the maintenance of operating the enterprise after the death of entrepreneur being the natural person. In consequence also art. 631 of Labour Code was significantly amended. This article provides the profound legal analysis of new regulation of consequences of entrepreneur's death for the continuity of employment relationships; it contains also the attempt of assessment of the new regulations.

The final solutions adopted in the Insurance and Reinsurance Resolution Directive – Directive IRRD (IRRD project) will have an impact on the institutional and legal structure of the insurance sector and the financial safety net in Poland. In this context, the way in which the final provisions of the IRRD will be implemented in the Polish legal order is of crucial importance. The article presents the resolution instruments, procedures concerning the valuation of assets of restructured entities, relations with third countries and their analysis in terms of implementation in the Polish insurance sector.

The principle of neutrality, embodied in Article 345 TFEU, leaves to the Member States the decision concerning private or public form of ownership of enterprises. Over the years it has been argued that the pertinence of the principle has faded in the practice of EU institutions. The following contribution examines how this principle is applied by the Court of Justice in the area of the free movement of capital, and more specifically – to what extent this internal market freedom undermines the principle of neutrality. It has been concluded that after the Essent judgment the status of the principle has been further reduced, if not rendered nugatory, which is difficult to reconcile with Article 345 TFEU.

The Code of Commercial Companies provides for two means of appealing against defective resolutions adopted by shareholders' meetings (general meetings of shareholders) of capital companies, namely an action to repeal a resolution or an action to declare it invalid. The provisions contain a catalogue of entities authorised to bring these actions, which was considered a closed catalogue. However, over time, through the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and common courts, and under the influence of the doctrine, this catalogue of entities has been expanded by assuming that the title to appear before the court is also vested in the creditor of a shareholder whose shares have been seized in enforcement proceedings, the pledgee and the usufructuary of shares (stocks), and the receiver exercising the powers resulting from the bankrupt's participation in a limited liability company. It should be assumed that there is a need to amend the provisions of the Commercial Companies Code in this respect and to define clearly which entities have the right to bring actions against defective resolutions of shareholders' meetings (general meetings of shareholders) in capital companies.

The aim of the commentary is to assess from the perspective of Polish civil law interpretation adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union of article 7 paragraph 1 (b) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC. According to this interpretation agency contract may deprive the commercial agent of the commission on the transaction concluded without his action with the customer previously acquired by this agent for transaction of the same kind. The commentary approved this interpretation and questioned arguments expressed in the Polish literature against interpretation adopted in the commented judgment, which arguments ignore the role of agent's intermediary as the fundamental premise for the right to a commission. The commentary points the significance of principal's equitable interests as the key argument in favour of the interpretation adopted in the commented judgment.