| In Principle

Invalidation of the Safe Harbour decision created a gap in the system for transfer of data from Europe to the US. The question arose of how to evaluate the legality of existing data transfer practices based on Safe Harbour, and what rules to apply in the resulting vacuum.

In today’s knowledge-based economy, consolidations of enterprises are common—sometimes even between competitors. Employment reductions are a natural part of any consolidation, but are a source of legal risks for merging competitors. Such risks are hard to eliminate, but does it have to end in stalemate?

The potential fine for carrying out a concentration without obtaining the required approval of the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) is up to 10% of the annual turnover of the enterprise, even if the failure was not wilful. A manager or board member who fails to make a required notification may have to pay as much as PLN 200,000. But what circumstances does the competition authority consider when determining the amount of the fine?

Creation of a joint venture by competitors, or obtaining joint control over a competing company through acquisition of its shares, may give rise to significant antitrust risks. Obtaining approval for the transaction from the competition authority may not ensure legal safety when competitors intend to pursue joint business initiatives.

In the EU system of antitrust law, the European Commission and the member states are autonomous in their application of leniency programmes. The soft harmonisation via the European Competition Network’s Model Leniency Programme is not binding on national competition authorities.

Many contractors, including those involved in public projects carried out under the Public Procurement Law, lose sleep over the theoretically harmless instrument provided for in Civil Code Art. 483 and 484. Contractual penalties are reserved for all manner of breaches of contract and in huge amounts. The time has to come to change that.

On 18 December 2015 the Dutch Court of Appeal at The Hague issued an interim judgment in a closely watched case concerning liability for environmental injury caused by an oil spill from Shell’s pipelines in Nigeria.

In a case handled by Wardyński & Partners, the firm has obtained a favourable ruling from the Warsaw Regional Court awarding damages for loss caused by inaction of the authorities and wrongful acts and omissions in administrative proceedings.

A proposed Act on Wind Power Plant Projects presented in February 2016 is intended to specify the rules for siting of wind farms. But the current version of the proposal generates a huge risk for further growth of the wind power sector and for wind farms already in operation and even for persons interested in building housing near existing wind projects.

Tenants who trusted lawmakers and the Agricultural Property Agency (ANR) and removed 30% of the farmland from their tenanted property in exchange for the right to acquire the remaining 70% of the farmland may find they are out of luck.

In a case led by Wardyński & Partners, the firm obtained a ruling from the Supreme Court favourable to owners of buildings as well as communal tenants, establishing the rule of the liability of the City of Warsaw for non-contractual use of the property.

On 1 February 2016, the Act on the Tax on Certain Financial Institutions came into force, introducing a “banking tax” and giving rise to multiple differences of opinion in the Polish banking and insurance sectors.