Introduction – The Reform of the Polish National Labour Inspectorate: Key Changes in 2026
New provisions governing the operation of the Polish National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, hereinafter: “PIP”) have been in force since 8 July 2026. The Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy (hereinafter: “MRPiPS”) is changing the law in order to strengthen the protection of employee rights in Poland. The amendment does not alter the Labour Code itself; rather, it introduces tools for the effective and efficient enforcement of the law already in force. Minister Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk described the act as a further instrument protecting honest businesses against unfair competitors who for years have built their advantage at the expense of workers – preventing the artificial lowering of labour costs (social security contributions, taxes, paid leave). The changes also implement milestones of Poland’s National Recovery Plan (KPO) aimed at curbing the abuse of civil-law contracts and improving the protection of persons in employment. The Ministry’s measures are directed above all at limiting bogus self-employment and so-called “junk contracts”.
In legal and commercial practice, the notion of the “no-confidence protocol” (protokół nieufności) displays a specific semantic duality, which draws a clear boundary between the colloquial understanding of corporate institutions and the automated architecture of the ICT systems of the administration of justice. Verification of this term requires, above all, the rejection of any assumption as to its statutory origin, for a thorough dogmatic analysis leads to the unambiguous conclusion that managerial practice and the registration procedure are not one and the same.
The longevity economy is commonly estimated at several hundred billion dollars worldwide and continues to grow rapidly.[1] Venture capital flows into biotechnology companies that promise to slow, halt, or reverse aging. Clinics from Zurich to Seoul to Miami sell “longevity programmes.” Supplement brands attach the word “longevity” to products ranging from NAD precursors to collagen powders. And yet the word “longevity” does not exist as a legal category in European Union law. There is no definition, no register, no certification scheme, and no authority empowered to decide what may or may not describe itself as a longevity product, a longevity clinic, or a longevity company.
As part of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of International Law’s highly successful conference at Mansion House in London, we had the opportunity to take part not only in the substantive programme of the conference, but also in a number of exceptional events accompanying it.
The loss or corruption of data in a business is rarely “just” a technical problem. In practice it is a serious legal and financial crisis: production downtime, loss of trust among business partners and, in extreme cases, administrative fines running into millions. The scope of liability, however, depends above all on what kind of data has been lost or corrupted. The law treats the loss of source code or technical documentation quite differently from a leak of employee records or a customer database. The first step in assessing liability for a breach of the integrity or availability of data is therefore its unambiguous legal classification.
