litigation | In Principle

Two conditions must be met for a civil dispute to be resolved effectively: at the earliest stage of the case it must be precisely defined what is truly disputed between the parties, and the proceeding should be planned so that those issues can be focused on. If this can be achieved, the parties and the court can devote their energy and attention to the truly relevant issues. This will improve the speed and quality of judicial decisions, legal certainty, and security of commerce.

Will the amended civil procedure rules improve the litigation position of people suffering a loss in motor vehicle collisions?

Art. 647¹ of the Civil Code, providing for the investor’s secondary liability for the contractor’s debts to subcontractors, was introduced into the Polish legal system in 2003. In April 2017, the parliament amended it thoroughly in adopting the Act Amending Certain Acts to Facilitate Debt Recovery. Two years after implementation, we try to answer the question whether the title of the amending act corresponds to reality and subcontractors really have a better chance of receiving payment for their work.

The parliament has granted subcontractors a high level of protection. The provisions on joint and several liability are strict for the investor and often in practice mean a risk of double payment for the same thing: the first time to the general contractor and the second time to the subcontractor. Therefore, the investor should be able to recover from the general contractor the sums paid directly to subcontractors.

Od czasu wprowadzenia do Kodeksu cywilnego, a później również do Prawa zamówień publicznych, przepisów o solidarnej odpowiedzialności inwestora za zapłatę należną podwykonawcom robót budowlanych, generalni wykonawcy znajdują się w swoistym potrzasku – między koniecznością nadzoru i dyscyplinowania podwykonawców a presją inwestora, by ich rozliczać.

Chapter X of the draft new Public Procurement Law (Art. 620–655) obliges the contracting authority and the contractor to conduct a mandatory conciliation procedure. While the very idea of settlement of disputes deserves full support, the proposed detailed solutions raise serious doubts under the Polish Constitution and EU law.

Increasing electricity prices may not please customers, but despite appearances they cause energy suppliers a lot of problems too. It is obvious that firms selling energy try to pass on increases in market prices to customers, even if they are bound by long-term energy sale agreements that guarantee a fixed price for the duration of the agreement. If this happens, customers need to seek the appropriate legal remedy to prevent costs going up, and in extreme cases prevent the electricity supply from being cut off.

Andrzej Sapkowski’s demands for more money for copyrights to The Witcher is the tip of the iceberg. Changes in the gaming industry, like increased production costs and the dominance of digital distribution platforms, will give rise to an increasing number of disputes, in particular over intellectual property rights. What could trigger these disputes and how can they be prevented?

Changing energy prices observed in the last few months on the Polish Power Exchange (TGE) are causing disputes between energy suppliers and customers. Suppliers are raising prices unilaterally, the buyers respond by terminating their agreements, and the first cases are being heard in the courts. The large amount of uncertainty on the market is hindering the signing of agreements for the future. Even large and experienced businesses are finding this new situation daunting.

When the investor suffers damage, it is not necessary to find out who contributed to it and to what extent. The damage can be redressed by all entities responsible for its creation, even if they took part in the construction process in different roles and on a different basis.

Both employers employing staff in Poland at Polish branches, representative offices or affiliated companies and employers employing staff in Poland without any legal presence here may become a party to employment-related litigation, namely a lawsuit brought by an employee or ex-employee before a Polish court.

The Supreme Court recently examined the question of courts being bound by final judgments issued in other cases. This issue relates to the binding nature of a judgment from a substantive point of view, i.e. that the same claim cannot be heard again once adjudicated upon. This is an issue of considerable practical relevance because it determines how the outcome of one case can affect how comparable cases are adjudicated. It also defines the boundaries with respect to a court’s freedom to ascertain facts and make legal evaluations by itself.