Source: https://www.profinfo.pl/sklep/przeglad-prawa-handlowego,7295,r,2017,nr,6.html
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 07:05:22
Document Index: 347687529

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 584', 'Art. 303', 'Art. 303', 'Art. 303', 'Art. 341', 'Art. 341', 'Art. 921', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 551']

Przegląd Prawa Handlowego - Nr 6/2017 [298] (Druk, PDF) - Profinfo.pl
Kod towaru: KIK-6501 201706
Indemnification clauses under the Polish lawp. 5
Krzysztof Felchner, Anna Tischner Protection of Community
Influence of the shareholder register on the legitimacy regime in a joint-stock company
Scope of liability of the entrepreneur under transformation, introduced in Art. 584(13) of the Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies
The article discusses the legal effects and potential applications of indemnification clauses under the Polish law. Since the wide use of these contractual clauses in contracts governed by the Polish law has been inspired by the infl uence of common law concepts on the domestic contractual practice, it is useful to consider their application in the jurisdictions of their origin. Accordingly, the nature of indemnity under the English and American law is briefly referred to in order to establish the basic characteristics of this contractual instrument and the commercial goals that are typically achieved with the use thereof. It also contains an analysis of how these commercial aims may be accomplished under the Polish law and what the effects of an indemnity clause in a contract governed by the Polish law are.
Design right infringements are not penalized under the Polish law. However, Art. 303 of the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law [AIPL] provides for criminal penalties for infringements of the right to the authorship of an 'inventive project' (the legal term which, according to the Polish law, encompasses also an design). The authors discuss the possibility of applying Art. 303 AIPL to Community designs. In the authors' opinion, Community designs fall within the category of an 'inventive project'. However, when applying the aforementioned Art. 303, one should take into account that the scope of protection of the design authorship is very narrow in the light of Regulation 6/2002 (much narrower than in the case of a design protected at the Polish national level). Similar problems regarding the application of criminal sanctions to infringements of EU trademark rights and Community plant varieties rights are also discussed. Finally, the authors call for appropriate amendments to the Polish law to avoid doubts regarding the application of the national criminal law to rights protected at EU level.
The paper discusses the issue of legitimacy of a registered shareholder pursuant to provisions of the Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies [CCPC] and the Civil Code. The legal scholars and the judiciary express discrepant views on particular issues within this area. The analysis in this article concerns mainly the significance of Art. 341 paras. 1-5 CCPC for the legitimacy regime in a joint-stock company. The paper attempts to justify the view that an entry in a shareholder register is a legal act and thus a company is bound only by a valid entry. This concept of an entry enables determining when the company will be authorized to rectify the shareholder register on its own. Art. 341 paras. 1-5 CCPC also substantially influence the assessment of the conflict between formal legitimacy and the actual right resulting from a registered share, including the application of Art. 921(7) of the Civil Code. In the current state of law, a valid entry in a shareholder register provides formal legitimacy to the shareholder until the procedure of registration is completed for the person who subsequently acquires the shares.
The article outlines the entity-related issues connected with financial assistance transactions. The first part of the article contains an analysis of admissibility of financial assistance in relation to certain types of companies or partnerships. Except for a joint-stock company, the legal situation is not clear due to lack of regulations. In the author's opinion, financial assistance is admissible also in a limited liability company and a limited joint-stock partnership, with some reservations made in the article. In the second part, entity-related exceptions to limitations of financial assistance in a joint-stock company are presented. The author describes the doubts that exist in this regard as a result of imprecise legal regulations, and proposes adequate solutions.
This article examines the relation between EU law and arbitration,aiming to assess the effect of the revisited Brussels Ia Regulation and whether it has appropriately resolved the questions concerning parallel proceedings, procedural devices strengthening the effectiveness of arbitration agreements (anti-suit injunction), allocation of jurisdiction in proceedings ancillary to arbitration, enforcement of judgments given by the courts in disregard of an arbitration clause and recognition of judgments on the validity of an arbitration clause. The case law of the CJEU is examined in part II. Part III describes the legislative process leading to the adoption of the recast regulation. Finally, part IV presents the relevant amendments, in particular recital 12,which explains the scope of the arbitration exception
An entrepreneur whose form of economic activity is transformed into a sole-shareholder company, in accordance with Art. 551(5), 584(1) and subs. of the Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies bears joint and several liability with the transformed company for liabilities of the entrepreneur under transformation arisen in relation to the economic activity pursued prior to the transformation day for a period of three years until the transformation day. This regulation is obvious. There is no doubt that subject to the statutory conditions, the entrepreneur under transformation will bear joint and several liability with the company. But often the company is only a temporary form before transformation into a partnership (most often a limited partnership whose general partner is another company) in which the entrepreneur under transformation (often with other persons) will be a limited partner. The aim of the present article is to answer the question if, after a subsequent transformation of the transformed company into another legal form, the liability of entrepreneur under transformation ceases or if it continues until the period of 3 years lapses. The second aim of the present article is to iden tify the basis for the settlement of mutual claims between the transformed company and the entrepreneur under transformation for any liabilities satisfied by them.
Piercing the corporate veil is a legal doctrine that goes against the principle of separate legal entity. In arbitration, the doctrine may be used to bind a third party to an arbitration agreement. Until recently the subject was merely present in Polish case law and jurisprudence. A new light on the subject was shed by the Supreme Court of Poland in a few labour law cases. The article presents an analysis of the relevant decisions and discusses the possible ways of developing the concept in the Polish arbitration law.