Journal of Business Law 06/2022

The article discusses the findings of EU courts in the case concerning the German OPAL gas pipeline, which refer to the EU principle of solidarity. The implications of these findings have been examined. The author argues that the position of the courts in the entitled case goes beyond the issue of energy solidarity referred to in Article 194(1)(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, in fact, concretizes the principle of sincere and genuine cooperation of Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union. He draws attention to the Court's wide-ranging obligation to take into account the interests and policies of all stakeholders in EU integration, which leads to a strengthening of EU integration, strengthens the position of the European Commission itself and may pose a problem in the judicial review of regulatory decisions.

Liability under the guarantee may constitute one of the grounds for a request by the buyer of a flat or single-family house to repair the property or its part. The permissibility of granting a guarantee by the developer is not obvious due to the lack of reference to such a basis of liability by specific provisions applicable to developer contracts. In addition, it should be noted that the developer contract does not constitute a sale contract, therefore the provisions on the warranty on sale will not directly apply. Doubts may arise from the legal nature of the transfer of possession of the guarantee documentation in the context of the developer transferring his guarantee rights to the buyer of a residential real estate.

In the article, the author emphasizes the most important issues arising from supervisory soft law, based on the example of EBA guidelines on the principles of product supervision and management. These guidelines are a very important element of the contemporary policy of protecting financial services customers in the EU, which is, above all, to be effective. Because of this, they are in some ways unique. Nevertheless, before the domestic court, they were challenged by the French Banking Association, as a result of which the CJEU will soon decide whether they are "genuine" soft law instruments and whether they were lawfully issued.

The aim of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the EU soft law acts covering the matter of financial supervision may be applied and interpreted differently not only by the addressees, but also by national courts (tribunals), public administration institutions or bodies forming part of national financial safety nets. Therefore, it is desirable that a uniform, contemporary view on this subject is formed at the EU level, which — in the author's opinion — is prompted by the extensive justification of the Advocate General's opinion presented on April 15, 2021 in case C-911/19. Especially since the very fact of challenging the EBA guidelines is a novelty in the financial market law.

The aim of the publication is to present the factors that influenced the current model of identity identification methods in the preparation and submission of financial statements and to define the criteria for assessing the optimal type of electronic signature. Financial statements are prepared in an electronic form and bear a qualified electronic signature, a trusted signature or a personal signature. Therefore, a universal solution for public entities is applied. However, the digitization of financial statements is distinguished by the fact that public authorities have created a number of portals and applications supporting the use of electronic signatures, in particular trusted signatures. Determining the preferred type of electronic signature depends on the degree of use by a specific entrepreneur of electronic communication in business transactions. A qualified electronic signature is a paid instrument, while a trusted signature and personal signature are free tools.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the changes introduced to strengthen the legal protection of consumers by the amendments to the Polish Code of Civil Procedure of 2019 and 2021 and to answer two specific questions: (1) whether, under the amendment of 2019, the court — assuming that the defendant is entitled to appropriate consumer protection — had the competence to refer such a case to the court with jurisdiction and (3) did the amendment of 2021 solve the problem of qualifying promissory note guarantors as consumers, in a situation where the promissory note surety (legal action) in relation to the entrepreneur was not directly related to the business or professional activity of the guarantor.

The article's subject is obligation to submit CBC-P notification, which is one of the stages of the automatic exchange information between tax authorities. This obligation is related to Country-by-Country reporting proposed under the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Entities operating in the structures of international groups are required to submit the CBC-P notification every year, by the end of the third month from the end of the group's reporting financial year. The article analyzes the most important problems related to the submission of the CBC-P notification, including the origins of this obligation, related to the fight against international tax avoidance, the subjective scope of the obligation to submit CBC-P, as well as penalties related to failure to submit this notification and its proportionality and the possibility of avoiding the imposition of such penalty.

The commented judgment concerns the assessment of compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of the interpretation of provisions regulating the scope of jurisdiction of administrative courts in the scope which does not allow for the control of the activities of a public authority in the subject of an open tender for the performance of a public task under the provisions of the Act of 24 April 2003 on public benefit activities and about volunteering. The author criticizes the legal nature of the competition activities adopted by the Constitutional Tribunal prior to the conclusion of the subsidy agreement and formulates arguments pointing to the contradiction of the Tribunal's ruling with the one expressed in Art. 45 of the Constitution, the right to have a case heard by a competent court.