Journal of Business Law 11/2022

The aim of this article is to present the key obligations of entities belonging to a financial conglomerate and potential problems of a leading entity that may arise in connection with the participation in the performance of supplementary supervision. In addition, the article presents proposals for amendments to the Act on Supplementary Supervision, which could strengthen the achievement of the goal of protecting the stability of financial entities that are part of a financial conglomerate.

The article analyzes the provisions of the amendment to the Act — Construction Law and the Act on spatial planning and development. In particular, the article analyzes provisions on the new category of construction facilities introduced — detached houses, no more than two-story single-family residential buildings with a building area of up to 70 m2. First of all, the it is assesses whether the new solutions will contribute to the acceleration and informalisation of the administrative procedure granting consent for the realization of such buildings.

The main objective of the article is to verify the thesis according to which remotely controlled switches placed on medium voltage (MV) overhead lines are a component of the power grid, and thus their values should be included in the tax base for structures related to running a business. The problem of taxing this type of installation (equipment) results from the legal definition of the term "structure" regulated in Art. 1a paragraph 1 point 2 of the Act on Local Taxes and Fees, which in its content refers to the provisions of the construction law.

The issue and specificity of a group of companies in French law was shaped on the basis of the judgment in the Rozenblum case of 1985. In this paper the author not only translates the most important original content of the judgment, but also analyzes it (also in historical way) from the perspective of the specificity of the French legal system. This specificity of the entire legal system, expressed in a rather original way of editing the codes or the extremely important role of jurisprudence, may explain the difficulties in direct implementation of the described concept of a group of companies under other legal orders. Thus, the aim of this article is not only to analyze and comment on the original wording of the above-cited judgment, but also to analyze the previously un-cited part of the French doctrine, which presents the judgment in question in a new French-language perspective that has not yet been the subject of in-depth analyzes. The above will also allow for the verification of the thesis about difficulties in direct implementation of the above-mentioned concepts in other legal orders due to the specificity of the French legal system, very strongly influenced by the role of practice and jurisprudence in the law-making process.

The article describes influence of declaration of bankruptcy on civil lawsuit relevant to bankrupt's debts. This proceedings must be ex officio suspended under Article 174.1.4. of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is when the proceedings shall be resumed. The most important difficulty is interpretation of Article 145.1 of the Bankruptcy Law. In view of this legal regulation a claim that should be lodged to the bankruptcy estate may be initiated against the receiver only if that claim is not included on the list of claims in bankruptcy proceedings in accordance with relevant provisions of this Act. The author analyzes this regulation in view of doctrine and new judgments of the Supreme Court.

The gloss is a commentary to the judgment issued by the Court of Appeals in Warsaw concerning the fine imposed on an undertaking for carrying out a concentration in the form of the acquisition of assets of another undertaking without the obligatory notification of the transaction to the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (OCCP). The analysed ruling touches on three important issues: the concept of concentration in the form of the acquisition of assets, calculating the turnover of entities involved in such concentration, as well as succession of antimonopoly liability. While the court's considerations in relation to the first and last issue may deserve approval, the concept of calculating the turnover in the case of acquiring part of the assets of another undertaking presented should not be appraised. In the circumstances of this case, it is impossible not to see the contradiction in the Court's finding that all of the undertaking's essential assets were acquired, while at the same time expecting to determine what proportion of the turnover was generated by the rest of the seller's assets, which was devoid of economic significance. This concept is not sufficiently supported by linguistic interpretation, ignores the unchallenged findings in this case about the dominant importance — in terms of turnover volume — of the acquired part of the assets of the seller's business, seems overly formalistic, contradicts the administrative practice of the President of the OCCP, and most of all contradicts the goals of the antimonopoly act. Last but not least, this concept is also irreconcilable with arguments of a functional nature, and in particular leads to imposing impossible obligations on entrepreneurs and the President of OCCP.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the possibility of applying Article 31za of the Act of 2.03.2020 on Special Solutions to Prevent, Counteract and Combat COVID-19, Other Infectious Diseases and Crisis Situations Caused by Them to suspend the running of limitation periods laid down in the substantive rules of financial market law. This publication provides a detailed description of the solution regulated in Article 31za of the COVID-19 Act and addresses problems related to the interpretation of this solution, that focus on the possibility of the Financial Supervision Authority extending the application of this provision.