On 4 November 2026 the Polish statute of 18 September 2026 consenting to the ratification of the Treaty between the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom on a Security and Defence Partnership, known as the Northolt Treaty, was signed. The remaining steps are ratification and the exchange of notifications between Warsaw and London; the Treaty enters into force 30 days after the later notification.
Technical debt, GDPR and NIS2 – how yesterday’s shortcuts turn into tomorrow’s liability
Why technical debt arises
Technical debt is a phenomenon that sooner or later affects almost every IT project. It consists in choosing a solution that is quicker to deliver but inferior in technical quality. A team usually “takes out” this loan under pressure from the business side, for which the key metric is time-to-market – the sooner the product reaches the market, the better.
In the short term this brings a quick win, but in the future the company has to start paying the “interest”. It shows up as ever higher system maintenance costs, a slowdown in the pace of work, and the mounting frustration of developers who, instead of developing the product, must keep fixing the same defects over and over. Although the term “technical debt” appears nowhere in legislation, concepts such as due diligence and the adequacy of technical measures in practice force companies to keep that debt from spiralling out of control.
The legal framework following the 2021 amendment and the resolution of a panel of seven judges of the Polish Supreme Court of 15 May 2025 (III CZP 22/24)
For years, the summons to a settlement attempt was the cheapest way for creditors to “renew” the limitation period under Polish law – a single application was enough for a claim to gain another full period of actionability. Since 30 June 2022, the rules of the game have changed: the summons no longer interrupts the running of the limitation period, but merely suspends it for the duration of the conciliation proceedings (Article 121(6) of the Civil Code). The effects of applications filed under the former provisions – which the courts will continue to assess for years to come – have meanwhile been settled by the resolution of a panel of seven judges of the Polish Supreme Court of 15 May 2025 (III CZP 22/24). In this article, we explain what exactly has changed, how to defend against instrumental settlement summonses, and what a creditor planning to pursue a claim must bear in mind today.
Errors, bias, opacity, data security and the accountability gap – what patients, clinicians and regulators need to watch
Artificial intelligence is already reading scans, ranking medical literature, predicting kidney failure and managing hospital beds. Its potential to make medicine faster, more precise and more personalised seems almost limitless. Yet the same technology brings a distinct set of risks: algorithms that fail silently, tools used without adequate training, models that reproduce existing inequalities, decisions that no one can explain, patient data that is exposed or re-used, and a legal framework that still struggles to say who is responsible when something goes wrong. This article maps those risks and outlines what is needed to manage them.
A growing number of businesses are investing in artificial intelligence and expect to recover the cost of those projects through the research and development (R&D) tax relief. The Polish tax authorities and the Supreme Administrative Court, however, draw a clear line: integrating an off-the-shelf AI model or implementing a commercially available system – however advanced or “self-learning” – is not R&D activity. The relief is available only to those who create new technology themselves and bear genuine research risk. We explain how the tax authorities’ “two-step test” works, what the Frascati Manual and the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court say, which costs in IT projects qualify and which are traps – and how to document the work so that the deduction survives a tax audit.
