litigation | In Principle

The state’s enforcement of epidemiological restrictions (commands and prohibitions), despite many doubts as to their constitutionality, currently constitutes lawful exercise of public authority. Nonetheless, even actions by the state with the blessing of the law may entail a risk of COVID-19 infection for doctors, nurses, police and others. Serious detriment to their health—or even death—as a result of infection may give rise to liability on the part of the State Treasury under the principle of equity.

In March, the European Commission recommended that member states introduce temporary restrictions on travel to the European Union (through 15 May 2020). The vast majority of European countries coordinate border control measures at the EU level. States are again fencing their territories, suspending the free movement of persons also between regions. Restricting travel may not only interfere with holiday plans and delay the delivery of goods and services, but also slow down legal proceedings. However, this can be prevented through legal assistance from cooperating courts of member states.

Declaration of a state of epidemiological threat and then a state of epidemic, and other legal acts, entails not only introduction of commands and prohibitions in everyday and professional life but also various types of restrictions on business operations. Doctors may be directed to work in hospitals for infectious diseases. Businesses are saddled with new restrictions causing them to generate significant losses. Can damages be sought from the State Treasury due to these restrictions?

Does the COVID-19 epidemic constitute force majeure interrupting the running of time limits on all claims? This is a vital issue for persons for whom time limits are expiring before entry into force of the planned statutory suspension of limitations periods.

Justice systems around the world will soon be exposed to the same pressure as is currently crushing healthcare systems in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. What can judges and advocates do to “flatten the curve” and increase the resilience of the justice system as it awaits the post-pandemic wave of disputes?

One of the more serious consequences of the pandemic will be a wave of business litigation. However, strong arguments and credible evidence are not enough to win a dispute. It also takes resources to pursue a lawsuit, and soon that may be particularly difficult to come by.

According to the International Energy Agency, over a fourth of oil and gas supplies today come from the seas. Over the past couple of decades, extraction of natural gas from offshore deposits has risen by over 50%. There is also growing emphasis on offshore wind energy. Ventures of this type are technically complex, often innovative, and consequently costly. That is why fuel companies insure platforms, borings, and drilling equipment. What is important to pay attention to in such insurance policies? How to prepare for a potential dispute?

An overhaul of Polish civil procedure was published on 6 August 2019. The amending act partly entered into force on 21 August, but most of the new rules apply from 7 November. What can we say so far about the new rules, what should be expected, and what are the worries?

The amendment of the Civil Procedure Code introduces a few technical improvements to increase the efficiency of proceedings.

While focusing on the most notable changes in the amended Civil Procedure Code, it is possible to overlook the change in the jurisdiction of the courts in several categories of cases. But this change is vital to many litigants.

Along with the recent amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, the separate procedure in commercial cases has returned. This will undoubtedly be a major change for businesses and their counsel.

Electronic service between attorneys, and the end of fictitious service. The amendment to the Civil Procedure Code has brought numerous changes to the service of legal documents.