The Act of 15 December 2017 on Insurance Distribution implementing the IDD Directive introduced the distributor’s obligation to adjust the insurance contract to the client’s demands and needs. Although such an obligation was not expressed by any law before, the courts tried to trace it from existing provisions on insurance contracts. Surprisingly the current judicature does not refer to the new provisions of The Act on Insurance Distribution searching for the means of client protection in earlier existing regulations in particular in rules providing for liability of the insurer for activities of his agent. While agreeing with the thesis that the changes made were of an evolutionary rather than revolutionary nature, the author expresses surprise at the law practitioners’ fail to recognize the importance of article 8 of the Law on Insurance Distribution. In his opinion, expressing new duty establishes contract liability and facilitates proving the unlawfulness as the prerequisite of the liability of the distributor for the loss resulting from the conclusion of the insurance contract unfavourable for the client.

The subject of the article is to assess the admissibility of compensation for any damage arising from the introduction of a Clean Transport Zone (SCT). This new legal instrument for environmental protection granted to municipalities aims to protect air and human health. The article indicates how to introduce regulations determining the zone area. The introduction of the zone is a lawful activity, so any liability relates to the legal activities of public authorities, analyzing the possible grounds for this responsibility in principle. Based on the observations made, it was indicated whether the commune or State Treasury would be liable for civil law for any damage suffered by entities in connection with the introduction of the clean transport zone.

The article aims to discuss the purpose, subject matter and content of animal adoption contracts that are present in circulation. The considerations are inspired by the analysis of the practice of circulation and case law on the issue of animal adoption contracts, against which the article raises some criticism. The Author differentiates within the framework of the article between contracts under which ownership of the animal is granted to the adopter, and contracts that grant the guardian rights and obligations of a relative nature that make up the so-called adoption obligation. Both types of adoption contracts should be considered unnamed contracts permissible under the principle of the freedom of contract, but the possibility of applying legal norms to them per analogiam is different. However, it is important to make the general assumption that when considering analogy, priority should be granted to analogy from those norms that relate to legal relations that allow the use of a property for oneself and in one’s interest. Among the principal theses of the article the thesis on the permissibility of the adopter’s acquisition of ownership of an animal abandoned under the procedure outlined in Articles 180-181 of the Polish Civil Code, which is sometimes disputed in the doctrine, should also be included.

Despite the passage of more than 20 years since the entry into force of the Polish Commercial Companies Code , many of the legal constructions indicated in it still raise doubts and give rise to legal disputes. One of them, of significant practical importance, is the possibility, as regulated in Article 66 of the Polish Commercial Companies Code, for the court to grant one of the partners of a general partnership the right to take over the assets and liabili-ties of the company in case it is composed of two partners and there is a reason for its dissolution on the part of one of them. Interpretation problems related to this regulation have been repeatedly raised in doctrine and juris-prudence, nonetheless, many of them remain unresolved, while the resolution of one uncertainty often leads to the development of another. The purpose of this article is to examine the issues related to the interpretation on the basis of Article 66 of the Polish Commercial Companies Code of the reason for the dissolution of the company aris-ing on the part of one of the partners, to identify the subject of the takeover, to specify the legal nature and the moment of transfer of the company’s assets and liabilities to one of the partners, as well as to consider certain procedural aspects that may emerge over the course of the proceedings.

Issues related to depriving a partner of a general partnership of the right to represent the partnership and conduct its affairs by way of legal proceedings raise many doubts in the literature. The purpose of this article is to attempt to resolve these doubts and to indicate the proper way of interpreting Articles 30 § 2 and 47 of the Polish Com-mercial Companies Code. The possibility to bring an action before a court based on the indicated provisions has been recognized as a corporate right vested in every partner. The exercise of this right aims at shaping the legal relationship between partners. Since a judgment in this type of case affects all partners, all of them should be par-ties to the court proceedings. On the other hand, the partnership itself is not entitled to bring an action under Articles 30 § 2 and 47 of the Polish Commercial Companies Code, as the partnership cannot shape its organiza-tional structure on its own.

A case triggered by bringing an action under Articles 30 § 2 and 47 of the Polish Commercial Companies Code is a property (and not a non-property) case within the meaning of Article 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A partner exercising the right under Articles 30 § 2 and 47 § 2 of the Polish Commercial Companies Code may claim not only the deprivation of another partner’s rights to represent the company or to conduct its affairs but also the limitation of these rights.

The article presents and discusses the provisions of collateral proceedings effective July 1, 2023, on securing claims in intellectual property cases. The reasons prompting the legislator to introduce special regulations are indicated, in particular the high risk of causing damage to the debtor that can be difficult to rectify, if the secured injunction claim turns out to be unfounded. The new regulations aim to mitigate the indicated risk via a directive ordering that the likelihood of invalidation of the exclusive right in other pending proceedings be taken into ac-count (Article 7301 § 11 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure), imposing an information obligation on the claim-ant (Article 736 § 5 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure), introducing an adversarial element into the securing proceedings (hearing of the debtor – Article 755 § 22 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure), and depriving the protection of the claimant who filed the security application too late.

The author positively assesses the direction of most of the new regulations, while pointing out some interpreta-tive doubts regarding, amongst other things, their scope of application. At the same time, the legislator’s solution, ordering the dismissal of the application for securing claims if the application is filed more than six months after the date of knowledge of the infringement of the exclusive right, is criticized. This solution seems too rigid and may lead to unfair consequences for the applicant when their inaction is justified.

This article aims to reflect on the effects of illegal resolutions of professional self-government bodies in light of the concept of conventional activities. Assuming that the mentioned resolutions are examples of such activities, the author proposes that such a contradiction should be treated not so much as a basis for the invalidity of the resolu-tion, but as a premise for repealing them or establishing their non-existence. Such a classification leads to the for-mulation of several more detailed conclusions, particularly the thesis on the permissibility of resolutions contrary to law to produce legal effects.

The subject of this publication is the issue of conflict of interest in the profession of an attorney-at-law. The work analyzes the conflict of interests in the face of changes made in the wording of the Code of Ethics for Attorneys-at-law and the Regulations on the Practice of the Profession. It is examined whether changes in the scope of compli-ance with the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest are revolutionary or orderly in nature, and attention is paid to the obligations of attorney-at-law resulting from the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest.

This gloss concerns the judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court sustaining the verdict of the Voivod-ship Administrative Court [Polish: Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, WSA] in Warsaw on the decision regarding registration on the list of attorneys-at-law. The court dismissed two cassation appeals filed by the Board of the National Bar Council of Attorneys-at-Law and the Minister of Justice against the judgment of the Voivodship Ad-ministrative Court in Warsaw of May 29, 2019, case file no. VI SA/Wa 2395/18 in a case involving a complaint by J. N. against the decision of the Minister of Justice of October 16, 2018. no. DZP-III-6110-485/18/3 on refusal of entry to the list of attorneys-at-law. 

The Judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of October 26, 2023 (case file no. III CZP 34/23) is of particular im-portance for legal practice. The Court indicated that if the leasing contract was terminated by agreement of the parties, Article 709(15) of the Civil Code shall not apply unless the parties have agreed otherwise. In the Judgment of October 26, 2023 (case file no. III CZP 18/23), the Polish Supreme Court stated that confirmation of inheritance under Article 681 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure may also apply to heirs who died after initiating proceed-ings for the division of inheritance. Moreover, in the Judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of October 19, 2023 (case file no. III CZP 9/23), the Polish Supreme Court decided that the receivable due to the housing cooperative in respect of fees for the renovation fund may be written off by offsetting.