News

Work is underway on the “Mobility Package”. Arguments related to environmental protection are against new regulations.

Representatives of Central European countries do not lay down their arms. Possible support may come also from Spain and Portugal. Germany and France remain the greatest proponents of the “Mobility Package”.

Certainly, adopting new regulations according to the assumptions presented so far would be a great blow to carriers from the peripheral countries of the European Union, especially Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic States.

To some extent, they would also be a challenge for enterprises registered in Poland.

In addition to legal arguments related to the need to maintain the common transport market within the European Union, recently ecological arguments have been raised.

One of the assumptions of the regulations being developed is to limit cabotage and impose the necessity of trucks returning to the country of registration.

Restrictive rules will make it necessary for truck drivers to drive without transporting any goods.

It is difficult to logically reconcile the need for such unproductive journeys with the environmental policy of the European Union.

According to the calculations of the Polish Minister of Transport, the introduction of the regulation as currently proposed will result in an additional emission of around 3 million tonnes of CO² per year in Germany alone. The source of emissions will be unloaded vehicles returning to their country of origin.

In view of the above, there is a high probability that the planned regulations will be tempered.

Source: Polish Press Agency

At the invitation of the Wielkopolski Fundusz Rozwoju we had the opportunity to participate in the conference “Doing Business in Scandinavia”.

Head of the law firm’s team, Attorney Marcin Walawski gave a short lecture on trade agreements concluded by Polish exporters with Scandinavian contractors and relevant legal provisions from the point of view of a lawyer cooperating with foreign entrepreneurs.

The speech of lawyer Marcin Walawski focused on European rules on the choice of jurisdiction in international trade agreements.

When making a decision to conclude a contract, the consulting with a lawyer about which court will be competent to deal with any dispute is worth taking.

From the perspective of Polish exporters, the jurisdiction of (for example) a court in Denmark or Norway may inhibit operational issues related to pursue claims from commercial partners.

Still few entrepreneurs are aware that the appropriate provisions in the contract can ensure the jurisdiction of courts in Poland. Consequently, it will also be possible to conduct a court dispute with the help of a Polish law firm.

The above is due to the fact that European-wide legal regulations are binding not only in Poland, but also in other European Union countries (and with some reservations also in the countries of the European Economic Area).

The conference organized on November 15^th 2019 in Poznań, was an excellent opportunity to exchange inspirational insights with Polish entrepreneurs entering new markets, as well as representatives of Polish companies operating for many years in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Thank you for the invitation, warm welcome and great organization!

Although Denmark sometimes abstain from the application of EU regulations, such a case does not occur regarding Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. By the letter of 20th December 2012, Denmark notified the Commission of its decision on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. Of course, this regulation also binds Poland.

In the light of frequent commercial contacts between Poland and Denmark, the issue of determining the appropriate jurisdiction can be crucial for effective redress in court. In a dispute of a cross-border nature, a lawyer in Poland often begins with this analysis.

The general rule is that persons residing in the territory of a Member State may be sued, regardless of their nationality, in the courts of that Member State.

Living in Poland, you can be sued in a Polish court.

The regulation provides for exceptions and special provisions, so it should be verified each time whether it will be possible to raise a plea of ​​lack of jurisdiction (or whether we will not be exposed to such a charge).

It should be emphasized that pursuant to art. 25 of this Regulation, the parties may agree which country’s courts will examine any future disputes.

Such a contract can be autonomous or integrated in a basic contract document.

For example, a Danish company may arrange with a Polish contractor that in each case disputes will be settled in Poland. You can also arrange the opposite – that regardless of where the defendant lives, the court in Denmark will be the competent court.

This is just an example – many configurations are possible within the European Union.

On the basis of art. 25 of Regulation 1215/2012, such an agreement should generally be concluded in writing or orally confirmed in writing. The subject of proper jurisdiction (in particular in the field of cross-border disputes of entities based in Poland and Denmark) appears frequently in our legal practice, which is why we will systematically introduce you to these issues.

On October 3, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a verdict that may have a revolutionary impact on the current jurisprudence of the courts regarding CHF loans in Poland.

Our legal team has been monitoring the jurisprudence practice of Polish courts in matters related to foreign currency loan agreements for quite a long time now.

However, rulings issued so far have not always been beneficial for consumers. A favorable judgment of the CJEU may change this trend, and as a result the chances of CHF mortgages loan holders in court disputes with banks will increase.

In the opinion of the CJEU, all unlawful clauses should be “removed” from CHF agreements, without replacing them. However, if the removal of these contractual terms results in a change in the nature and subject matter of this contract, it may be considered void. A contract without illegal clauses may continue to apply only if it complies with national law.

In the coming weeks, the legal office’s team will be analyzing loan agreements concluded by our clients with the banks: mBank S.A. (formerly: BRE Bank S.A.), Santander Bank Polska S.A. (formerly: Bank Zachodni WBK S.A.), PKO BP, Getin Noble Bank S.A.

With the current situation on the labour market, a good employee is at a premium. Nevertheless, employers sometimes still terminate the employment contract without notice due to the employee’s fault.

The basic provision that covers “disciplinary dismissal” is Art. 52 of the Labour Code.

It provides for three main reasons for giving a disciplinary dismissal statement to an employee, but in practice the most common is the use of the first of the grounds listed in this provision, i.e. “a serious violation by the employee of basic employee obligations”.

One of the common mistakes is insufficient clarification of the reason for termination of the contract. This error includes both shortcomings in the indication of which (specifically!) obligation was violated by the employee, as well as what his alleged breach was exactly.

It is not disputed that the “employer’s obligation to indicate in the statement on termination of employment without notice due to the fault of the employee the reason justifying this solution means that it should be determined in a way that clearly indicates what in the opinion of the employer, employee’s breach was exactly” (vide judgment of the Supreme Court of 14 December 1999, I PKN 444/99, OSNAPiUS 2001, No. 9, item 313).

According to the current court jurisprudence, the reason indicated by the employer should be clear and understandable for the employee familiarising himself with the statement. The reason – even if it is real – should also be verifiable and articulated in an understandable way.

An equally common mistake of employers is going for “quantity, not quality”. Listing many superficial reasons for terminating the employment contract, may – in case of litigation –  not work in the employer’s favour. Therefore, it is worth paying special attention to the preparation of such a document to increase your chances in the event of a possible trial.