Poland has for years represented one of the most restrictive approaches in Europe. That is precisely why the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Commission v Poland, delivered on 19 June 2025 in Case C-200/24, is so important. It does not only affect one domestic provisions. It forces us to revisit a broader question: where is the proper legal balance between public health protection, professional ethics, consumer information, and economic freedom in the pharmacy sector?

The remarks are divided into four parts. First, there are outlined the general European framework for advertising medicinal products and pharmacies. Second, it is explained why pharmacy advertising is treated as a particularly sensitive area under EU law. Third, there is discussed the Polish model, which until now has been exceptionally restrictive. And fourth, there is addressed the recent CJEU judgment and the Polish draft reform, which together may fundamentally reshape the rules of pharmacy communication in Poland.

At EU level, the starting point is that Europe does not operate on the basis of a single, fully harmonised code for pharmacy advertising as such. Instead, the legal landscape is fragmented. There is a detailed EU framework for the advertising of medicinal products, especially through Directive 2001/83/EC, while the advertising of pharmacies themselves is still regulated primarily by national law. But that national autonomy is not unlimited. It must remain consistent with the internal market freedoms, with the E-Commerce Directive, and with the principle of proportionality under EU law. That is exactly where the Polish system ran into difficulty.

The most important EU instrument is Directive 2001/83/EC, the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Its advertising rules, especially Articles 86 to 100, are the backbone of pharmaceutical advertising law in Europe. The directive defines advertising broadly and regulates both what may be promoted and how promotion may take place. It is not simply a technical instrument. It reflects a policy choice: medicinal products are not treated like ordinary consumer goods. The law is designed to protect public health, prevent misleading influence on therapeutic choices, and promote rational use of medicines. Those three ideas run through the whole European model.

One major feature of this model is the prohibition on advertising prescription-only medicines to the general public. In Europe, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is not accepted. Prescription medicines may be promoted only to healthcare professionals such as doctors or pharmacists. By contrast, over-the-counter products may be advertised to the public, but even then under strict conditions: the message must be objective, not misleading, and consistent with the authorised product information. It must not exaggerate therapeutic benefits, and it must encourage rational use rather than emotional or manipulative consumption.

EU law also prohibits advertising of medicinal products that do not yet have a marketing authorisation. And, more generally, any advertising must comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics and be grounded in reliable scientific data. That requirement matters because it shows that pharmaceutical advertising is not seen only as commercial speech. It is also treated as a health-related communication which may affect patient behaviour and, in turn, health outcomes. That is why the margin for persuasive marketing is narrower here than in many other sectors.

A further layer of regulation concerns the forms of promotion. Across Europe, various restrictions exist on price promotions, gifts, loyalty schemes, samples, and other financial incentives linked to medicines. There is a recurring concern that financial inducements may distort therapeutic choices and turn medicines into ordinary promotional goods. In some jurisdictions, even discount-based campaigns for medicinal products are viewed with suspicion. The same logic applies to the use of gifts or material advantages. These restrictions are all rooted in the same policy concern: that the purchase and use of medicines should not be driven by aggressive sales techniques.

This leads to an important distinction which is often blurred in practice but is central in law: the distinction between advertising medicines and advertising pharmacies. The former is partly harmonised at EU level; the latter is not. In many Member States, pharmacies may advertise at least some aspects of their activity. Typically, they may communicate their location, opening hours, available pharmaceutical services, sometimes home delivery, vaccination or testing services, and other forms of patient support. This is especially relevant in the digital environment, where EU law has also developed a framework for online sale of medicines, including the common logo for legal online pharmacies and national registers of authorised online sellers. The rise of e-pharmacy and digital health services makes it increasingly artificial to treat all pharmacy communication as inherently suspect.

Against that background, Poland became an outlier. Under Article 94a(1) of the Polish Pharmaceutical Law, there was, until now, a near-total prohibition of advertising of pharmacies, pharmacy outlets, and their activity. In practice, the only clearly permitted category was information on location and opening hours. Enforcement lay with the regional pharmaceutical inspector, who could order cessation of the prohibited activity and impose administrative fines of up to PLN 50,000. What made the Polish system especially problematic was not only the text of the law, but also its interpretation. Neutral statements such as “You can pay by card here” or “We speak Lithuanian here” were treated as unlawful advertising. In other words, the concept of advertising was interpreted so expansively that even practical consumer information could trigger sanctions.

Legally speaking, that approach was always vulnerable. The reason is simple. Even if there is no single EU regulation specifically on pharmacy advertising, Member States cannot legislate in a way that disregards primary EU law and directly applicable internal market principles. In particular, domestic rules must remain compatible with freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU, freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU, and, where online communication is concerned, with Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, which protects the use of commercial communications by members of regulated professions subject to professional rules. That is the legal architecture against which the CJEU assessed Poland’s total ban.

The judgment of 19 June 2025 in Case C-200/24 is therefore a landmark. The Court held that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU, Article 56 TFEU, and Article 8(1) of the E-Commerce Directive. The key point was proportionality. Poland argued that the broad ban was justified by public health concerns, especially the need to combat excessive consumption and overuse of medicines. The Court did not deny that public health is a legitimate aim. But it held that the Polish rule went beyond what was necessary to achieve that aim. In the Court’s view, an absolute prohibition covering essentially all pharmacy advertising was too restrictive and disproportionate.

That proportionality analysis is crucial, especially for an international audience. The Court did not say that pharmacy advertising must be entirely free. Nor did it say that Member States are prevented from regulating pharmacy communications. What it said was more nuanced and more important: yes, a Member State may regulate, restrict, and supervise pharmacy advertising in order to protect public health; but no, it may not impose a blanket prohibition that captures all commercial communication regardless of content, medium, or effect. That is classic EU proportionality review: the legitimacy of the objective is recognised, but the means chosen must be suitable, necessary, and balanced.

The Court also made another important point. Pharmacies do not merely sell medicines. They also provide services. Those services may include pharmaceutical care, diagnostics, advisory functions, and other health-related activities not reducible to drug distribution alone. Once that is acknowledged, the Polish state’s argument becomes weaker. If a pharmacy wants to communicate that it offers a certain lawful service, or that it provides patient-friendly access conditions, or that it has certain facilities, that is not the same thing as stimulating irrational medicine consumption. The Court accepted that pharmacy advertising can also serve legitimate informational purposes and may benefit consumers, including by enabling them to compare prices or learn about available services.

This reasoning has direct practical consequences. It means that the legal debate in Poland is no longer about whether the old absolute prohibition is sustainable. It is not. The real question now is what should replace it. And that is where the draft reform enters the picture.

According to the Polish government’s published project, the reform is intended to implement the CJEU judgment by repealing the total ban and replacing it with a regulated advertising model. The project explicitly states that the purpose is to abolish the total prohibition in Article 94a and define rules for pharmacy advertising compatible with EU law while preserving the ethical framework of the profession. The draft also aims to update sanctions, which had remained unchanged for many years.

Under the draft, pharmacy advertising would be legally defined as any activity consisting in informing or encouraging the use of a pharmacy’s offer in order to increase sales of available assortment, services provided, or implemented programmes. That is a broad definition, but unlike the previous model it does not operate through total prohibition. Instead, it creates a regulated field of permitted communication with specific exclusions. This is a major conceptual shift: from prohibition with a tiny informational exception, to permission with a detailed list of safeguards and prohibitions.

What, then, would remain prohibited? The draft law would prohibit comparative advertising within the meaning of Polish unfair competition law. It would prohibit advertising directed at children or adolescents under 18, and also the use of elements specifically appealing to minors. It would prohibit the use of images or recommendations of famous persons, scientists, and persons with medical education, or even persons suggesting such education. It would prohibit fear-based messaging, including suggestions that failure to use a pharmacy’s offer may worsen health. It would also prohibit unlawful content, violations of professional secrecy, and breaches of pharmaceutical ethics. Finally, and very importantly, it would prohibit offering material benefits such as loyalty programmes or conditional discounts. So the reform is liberalising in structural terms, but still restrictive in substance.

Enforcement would remain in the hands of the regional pharmaceutical inspector. If the inspector orders the cessation of unlawful advertising, that decision would remain immediately enforceable. At the same time, sanctions would become more severe: according to the draft law and the government’s project summary, the maximum administrative fine would be increased from PLN 50,000 to PLN 100,000. So from a compliance perspective, the message is mixed but clear: there will be more room to communicate, but also stronger supervisory expectations and potentially higher penalties for getting it wrong.

The transitional provisions are also extremely important for practice. Administrative proceedings initiated under the old Article 94a and linked to Article 129b, if still pending when the new rules enter into force, are expected to be discontinued. That would be highly beneficial for pharmacy operators currently exposed to ongoing proceedings. The source also raises a further issue: possible state liability for damage caused by final administrative decisions based on a national norm later found contrary to EU law. In Polish private law, that discussion would likely arise in connection with the provisions on state liability for unlawful normative acts and administrative decisions. Even if the practical path to compensation is complex, the legal point is important: the CJEU judgment is not only prospective in effect; it may also shape litigation about the consequences of the previous enforcement model.

Finally, the reform has also provoked understandable concern from the pharmacy profession itself. Representatives of the pharmacy chamber have expressed fear that liberalisation could reopen the door to aggressive marketing techniques, especially online. They are particularly concerned about the future role of artificial intelligence in targeted communications, the difficulty of distinguishing neutral health information from covert advertising, and the risk that large urban pharmacy operators will gain a disproportionate competitive advantage over smaller local pharmacies. Those are serious concerns, and in my view they should not be dismissed. They show that the post-C-200/24 model in Poland will not be a simple story of deregulation. It will be a story of re-regulation, with new lines of dispute around digital marketing, platform visibility, algorithmic targeting, and professional ethics.

This is also where the AI Act begins to matter conceptually. There is no pharmacy-specific lex specialis for AI-driven pharmacy advertising, so the general transparency and governance logic of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 may become increasingly relevant in future compliance analysis. Even if the AI Act does not itself answer the pharmacy advertising question, it provides the broader regulatory context in which digital promotional practices will be assessed.

Three final observations.

First, at EU level, pharmacy advertising sits at the intersection of public health law, market regulation, professional ethics, and digital communications law. It is not a purely national topic, even though much of the detailed regulation remains domestic.

Second, Poland has until now embodied the most restrictive end of the spectrum, largely because of the nearly absolute ban in Article 94a and its expansive administrative enforcement. That model has now been authoritatively rejected by the CJEU as incompatible with EU law.

Third, the future Polish regime will not simply become “advertising-friendly.” Rather, it will move toward a controlled communication model: broader than before, but still ethically constrained, professionally supervised, and heavily conditioned by public health concerns. For international lawyers and foreign investors, this makes Poland especially interesting. It is becoming a case study of how an over-restrictive national rule can be corrected through EU free movement law, yet still replaced by a highly regulated domestic framework rather than by pure liberalisation.

Artykuł Pharmacy Advertising in the European Union, with a Focus on Poland after the CJEU Judgment of 19 June 2025 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

On March 26, 2026, our law firm, KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski, will participate in the annual Job Fair organized by the Jagiellonian University. The event will take place from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Jagiellonian University Auditorium Maximum at 33 Krupnicza Street.

The Jagiellonian University Job Fair is one of the most important recruitment events in Krakow, bringing together employers from many sectors – from international corporations and public institutions to specialized consulting firms and law firms.

Let’s meet at our stand

During the event, we invite you to visit our stand, where you will be able to:

– talk to our team about your career path as a lawyer,

– learn more about working in a modern law firm,

– get tips on professional development,

– get acquainted with current cooperation opportunities.

Who we are – profile of KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski

KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski is a modern law firm specializing in serving business clients, in particular in the areas of:

– economic and commercial law,

– company services,

– new technologies and e-commerce law,

– labor law,

– investment and contract management.

We combine legal experience with a practical approach to business, supporting both Polish and international entities. We prioritize development, innovation, and teamwork based on partnership.

Who will you meet at the fair?

The Jagiellonian University Job Fair is an excellent opportunity to meet a wide range of employers. Exhibitors include: EY, IBM, Google Poland, Accenture, State Street Bank, ABB, HAYS Poland, Lufthansa Group Business Services, Bank Millennium, Social Insurance Institution, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, World Bank Group and many other companies and institutions.

Who are we looking for?

During the fair we will be particularly interested in learning about:

– law students,

– students of new technologies,

– administration students,

– people interested in commercial law and services for entrepreneurs,

– candidates open to development in a dynamic work environment.

We value:

– commitment and willingness to learn,

– analytical thinking skills,

– good work organization,

– knowledge of foreign languages (English is welcome).

We offer the opportunity to gain practical experience, participate in interesting projects, and have a real impact on the development of the law firm.

See you at the fair!

If you are considering a career in a modern law firm and want to gain experience working with businesses, be sure to visit our stand.

March 26, 2026, Auditorium Maximum UJ – we are waiting for you!

Artykuł KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski at the Jagiellonian University Job Fair – March 26, 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

On 25 March 2026, the latest edition of the Legal 500 EMEA ranking – one of the most prestigious legal directories worldwide – was officially published.

We are pleased to announce that KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski has once again been recognized in the ranking – continuously since 2019 – further strengthening its position among recommended law firms in Poland.

Strong Position in Key Practice Areas

In this year’s edition of Legal 500, our firm has been recommended in three important practice areas:

• Data Privacy and Data Protection

• Healthcare and Life Sciences

• Private Client

We are particularly proud to maintain and strengthen our position in highly demanding and specialized areas such as Life Sciences and Data Privacy, which require a combination of regulatory expertise, sector knowledge, and international experience.

Cross-Border Experience

The Legal 500 2026 recommendations clearly highlight the international nature of our practice and our extensive experience in cross-border matters.

KG Legal advises both Polish companies expanding internationally and foreign investors operating in Poland. Our work includes complex projects requiring coordination across multiple jurisdictions, sector-specific regulatory knowledge, and a deep understanding of international business environments.

Individual Recognitions

This year’s ranking also brings significant individual distinctions for our team. Our lawyers have been named and recommended in the testimonials as leading partners, reflecting their strong reputation and direct client recognition.

Moreover, one of our lawyers has once again been ranked as a Leading Individual in the Healthcare and Life Sciences category.

This is a particularly prestigious distinction, as only a limited number of lawyers in Poland receive this recognition, highlighting exceptional expertise, market position, and client trust.

Client Testimonials – Professionalism and Relationship-Driven Approach

This year’s client feedback emphasizes both the quality of our legal services and the way we work with clients:

“The individuals I have worked with at KG Legal demonstrate exceptional professionalism, discretion, and a sincere commitment to client interests.”

“The individuals I’ve gotten to know at KG Legal leave a lasting impression through their integrity, kindness, and commitment to excellence. They are approachable, thoughtful, and willing to go the extra mile to build relationships.”

These testimonials underline not only our legal expertise, but also our strong focus on building trust, maintaining long-term relationships, and delivering client-centered service.

Expertise in Technology and Regulation

The ranking also highlights our experience in innovative and highly regulated areas:

“The team of KG Legal is unique for their knowledge and insights about innovative matters such as AI, data privacy and data protection. At the same time, they are very flexible about new issues and are responsive. I may recommend companies doing businesses in or in relation to Poland to engage KG Legal.”

This recognition confirms our capability to support clients in areas where law intersects with technology and rapidly evolving regulatory frameworks.

Continuous Development Since 2019

Our continuous presence in the Legal 500 ranking since 2019 reflects the firm’s consistent growth and the ongoing development of our international legal capabilities.

This year’s results clearly demonstrate that KG Legal continues to strengthen its position as a trusted advisor for clients involved in cross-border business, offering broad expertise, practical insight, and international experience.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our Clients for their trust and our entire team at KG Legal for their dedication and professionalism, which make these achievements possible.

Artykuł KG Legal KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI in the Legal 500 2026 Ranking – Confirmation of International Capabilities pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

On 17 March 2026, a conference entitled “Cross-regulatory interplay and cooperation in the EU: a data protection perspective” took place in Brussels (Borschette Center). The event focused on regulatory cooperation in the European Union from a data protection perspective and gathered representatives of EU institutions, regulatory authorities, academia, and practitioners in law and digital policy.

KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski participated in the conference, following the latest developments in interpretation and cooperation between key regulatory regimes shaping the EU digital economy.

https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/conference-cross-regulatory-cooperation-eu-17-march-programme-available-now_en

Key focus of the conference

The purpose of the conference was to provide a high-level overview of the activities of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in the context of the growing interdependence of various regulatory frameworks within the European Union, in particular in the areas of:

• data protection

• competition law

• regulation of digital platforms

• supervision of digital markets

Discussions focused on how different legal regimes and supervisory authorities interact in practice, as well as how cooperation between enforcement bodies is ensured at both EU and Member State levels.

Particular attention was given to:

• synergies between data protection and competition law

• complementarity of GDPR and DMA

• interaction between DSA and GDPR in practice

• coordination mechanisms between regulatory authorities

• impact of new EU digital regulations on the market and user protection

Main discussion panels

Panel 1: Data protection and competition: how to reap the synergies

Panel 2: DMA and GDPR: a relationship of complementarity

Panel 3: DSA and GDPR: how they interact in practice

Key speakers and participants

The conference included keynote speeches by representatives of EU institutions, including:

• Henna Virkkunen – Executive Vice-President of the European Commission

• Javier Zarzalejos – Member of the European Parliament, Chair of the LIBE Committee

Participants included experts from EU institutions, regulatory authorities, academia, and the private sector, such as:

• Anu Taalus – Chair of the European Data Protection Board

• Aymeric Pontvianne – Chief Economist at CNIL

• Claudia Berg – Partner at Covington & Burling LLP

• Massimiliano Kadar – European Commission, DG COMP

• Wolfgang Kerber – University of Bonn

• Katarzyna Prusak-Górniak – Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU

Importance of regulatory cooperation

The conference served as an important platform for dialogue between regulators, EU institutions, and experts working in the digital economy.

In the context of rapidly evolving EU digital regulations – including GDPR, DMA and DSA – the discussions highlighted the importance of consistent interpretation, effective cooperation between authorities, and coordinated enforcement across jurisdictions.

Artykuł KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski at the Conference on Cross-Regulatory Cooperation in the EU – Brussels, 17 March 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Już 26 marca 2026 r. nasza kancelaria KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski weźmie udział w corocznych Targach Pracy organizowanych przez Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Wydarzenie odbędzie się w godzinach 10:00–15:00 w Auditorium Maximum UJ przy ul. Krupniczej 33.

Targi Pracy UJ to jedno z najważniejszych wydarzeń rekrutacyjnych w Krakowie, gromadzące pracodawców z wielu sektorów – od międzynarodowych korporacji, przez instytucje publiczne, po wyspecjalizowane firmy doradcze i kancelarie prawne.

Spotkajmy się przy naszym stoisku

Podczas wydarzenia zapraszamy do odwiedzenia naszego stoiska, gdzie będzie można:

– porozmawiać z naszym zespołem o ścieżce kariery w zawodzie prawnika,

– dowiedzieć się więcej o pracy w nowoczesnej kancelarii prawnej,

– uzyskać wskazówki dotyczące rozwoju zawodowego,

– zapoznać się z aktualnymi możliwościami współpracy.

Kim jesteśmy – profil KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski

KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski to nowoczesna kancelaria radców prawnych, specjalizująca się w obsłudze klientów biznesowych, w szczególności w obszarach:

– prawa gospodarczego i handlowego,

– obsługi spółek,

– prawa nowych technologii i e-commerce,

– prawa pracy,

– obsługi inwestycji i kontraktów.

Łączymy doświadczenie prawnicze z praktycznym podejściem do biznesu, wspierając zarówno polskie, jak i międzynarodowe podmioty. Stawiamy na rozwój, innowacyjność oraz partnerską współpracę w zespole.

Kogo spotkacie na targach?

Targi Pracy UJ to doskonała okazja do poznania szerokiego spektrum pracodawców. Wśród wystawców znajdą się m.in.: EY, IBM, Google Poland, Accenture, State Street Bank, ABB, HAYS Poland, Lufthansa Group Business Services, Bank Millennium, Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych, World Bank Group oraz wiele innych firm i instytucji.

Kogo szukamy?

Podczas targów będziemy szczególnie zainteresowani poznaniem:

– studentów prawa,

– studentów nowych technologii,

– studentów administracji,

– osób zainteresowanych prawem gospodarczym i obsługą przedsiębiorców,

– kandydatów otwartych na rozwój w dynamicznym środowisku pracy.

Cenimy:

– zaangażowanie i chęć nauki,

– umiejętność analitycznego myślenia,

– dobrą organizację pracy,

– znajomość języków obcych (mile widziany język angielski).

Oferujemy możliwość zdobycia praktycznego doświadczenia, udziału w ciekawych projektach oraz realnego wpływu na rozwój kancelarii.

Do zobaczenia na targach!

Jeśli myślisz o karierze w nowoczesnej kancelarii prawnej i chcesz zdobywać doświadczenie w pracy z biznesem – koniecznie odwiedź nasze stoisko.

26 marca 2026, Auditorium Maximum UJ – czekamy na Ciebie!

Artykuł KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski na Targach Pracy Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego – 26 marca 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The concept of import tax

According to Article 2, point 7 of the Polish Value Added Tax Act of 11 March 2004, the import of goods should be understood as “the import of goods from a third country into the territory of the European Union.” Generally speaking, import taxes are charged by the customs authority of a given country or region for shipments originating abroad. However, this does not mean that a fee must be paid for every international shipment. Many countries and organizations (primarily the European Union) apply de minimis threshold. This is the minimum order value, determined in a given country, below which import taxes are not charged. For example, in the European Union, pursuant to Article 23, paragraph 1 of Regulation 1186/2009 establishing a Community system of customs duty reliefs, shipments from third countries containing goods of negligible value are exempt from customs duties. According to Article 23, paragraph 2 of that regulation, these goods do not exceed a value of EUR 150 per shipment.

Import tax on works of art in Poland

In our country, from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1998, the Act of November 25, 1993, on Import Tax on Goods Imported or Shipped from Abroad, was in force. According to Article 5 of this Act, the tax base was the customs value of the goods, increased by the customs duty due, and the tax rate was to be 5% of the tax base; later, this value was reduced to 3%.

Currently, a special import tax applies in Poland to works of art, among other items. Pursuant to Article 120, Section 2 of the Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act), a reduced VAT rate of 7% applies to works of art. Article 120, Section 1, Item 1 of this Act defines works of art in this context as:

a) paintings, collages and similar decorative plaques, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by the artist, excluding plans and drawings for architectural, engineering, industrial, commercial, topographical or similar purposes, hand-decorated artistic craft products, painted fabrics for theatrical scenery, for the decoration of artists’ studios or for similar uses (CN 9701),

b) original engravings, prints and lithographs, produced in limited numbers, in black and white or colour, composed of one or more sheets, executed entirely by the artist, regardless of the process or material used, excluding any mechanical or photomechanical processes (CN 9702),

c) original sculptures and statues in any material, provided they were made entirely by the artist; sculpture casts, the number of which is limited to 8 copies and the execution was supervised by the artist or his heirs (CN 9703),

d) tapestries and wall hangings made by hand based on original designs provided by the artist, provided that their number is limited to 8 copies,

e) photographs taken by the artist, published by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered, limited to 30 copies in all sizes and frames.

In this way, the concept of works of art is distinguished from the concepts of collectors’ items, antiques and used goods, described in the following paragraphs.

However, the Act on Value Added Tax provides for an exception, as pursuant to Article 120, paragraph 4 of the VAT Act, a tax rate of 22% applies to works of art acquired by a given person with the intention of reselling them as part of their business activity.

Major changes to the import tax on works of art have also been introduced from 2025. Previously, it was possible to apply general rules or the so-called “margin procedure,” under which the difference between the sale amount and the purchase amount, reduced by the amount of tax due, was subject to taxation. These changes were already introduced by the Act of November 8, 2024, amending the Act on Value Added Tax and certain other acts implementing the provisions of Article 317 of EU Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and Directive 2022/542 amending it.

The changes will apply to cases where a taxpayer personally imported these goods or acquired works of art from their creators or their legal successors, or from taxpayers who do not use the margin scheme (Article 120, Section 17 of the VAT Act). In such cases, the margin scheme may only be applied if a reduced rate was not applied to the import or delivery of the works of art.

Also, Article 120, paragraph 15 of this Act introduces the requirement of appropriate records (in accordance with Article 109, paragraph 3) in the event that, in addition to the procedures described in Article 120, paragraphs 4 and 5, the taxpayer also applies general taxation principles; these records should include, among other things, the amount of the purchase of goods necessary to determine the amount of the margin.

It should also be remembered that under Article 120, Section 14 of the VAT Act, a taxpayer may also apply general provisions on taxation to used items, in which case the person will be able to deduct the amount of input tax on these goods for the period in which the taxpayer’s tax liability arose for the supply of these goods.

Judgments and interpretations

According to ruling VIII SA/ Wa 712/22, if goods have already been subject to value added tax upon sale to a consumer who did not benefit from the VAT deduction in the price paid, the subsequent resale of these goods as used may be subject to VAT only to the extent that the taxpayer trades in the acquired goods and generates income from them. Only the VAT taxpayer’s reporting of such turnover, when they acquired used goods on which they were unable to deduct the VAT charged by the seller, entitles the taxpayer to VAT on the margin, which is the difference between the price paid upon purchase of the used goods and the price acquired for the purpose of selling them for consideration to obtain a margin as part of the remuneration for the service.

Under this ruling, the application of Article 120 paragraphs 4 and 10 of the VAT Act (taxation of margins) is not dependent on whether the seller is a taxpayer referred to in Article 15 or whether they are a taxpayer of value added tax. Even if they are such a taxpayer, it is still possible to tax the sales margin on goods purchased from such an entity under the VAT system. According to the court, it is sufficient here that the material conditions listed in the VAT Act are met: the supply concerned tax-exempt activities (after meeting certain conditions) or the supply of goods was tax-exempt to an entrepreneur whose sales value did not exceed PLN 200,000 in either the previous or the current tax year (excluding tax, Article 43 paragraph 1 item 2 and Article 113 of the VAT Act). Moreover, if a domestic buyer purchases goods from an entity that is not a VAT payer, they are not required to have documents confirming the purchase of goods for which the tax base was the margin, which is the difference between the sales amount and the purchase amount, reduced by the amount of tax (Article 120, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the VAT Act). According to the court, it is sufficient to meet the material conditions listed in the VAT Act: the supply concerned tax-exempt activities (after meeting certain conditions) or the supply of goods was tax-exempt to an entrepreneur whose sales value did not exceed PLN 200,000 in either the previous or current tax year (excluding tax, Article 43, paragraph 1, item 2 and Article 113 of the VAT Act). Moreover, if a domestic buyer purchases goods from an entity that is not a VAT payer, he is not obliged to have documents confirming the acquisition of goods for which the tax base was the margin, which was the difference between the sales amount and the purchase amount, reduced by the amount of tax.

Further, in judgment III SA/ Wa 2236/13, the Court agreed with the Director of the Customs Chamber’s argument that the historic coins are collectors’ items because they are not typically used as a means of payment. These coins were issued in small quantities, and the mere fact that they may constitute legal tender does not mean that they are typically used as such. Therefore, these coins are collectors’ items and are not subject to tax exemption under Article 45 paragraph 1 item 8 of the VAT Act. As already mentioned, the Court agreed with this interpretation, but stated that classifying these coins as collectors’ items would also affect the application of Article 120 paragraph 2, and therefore the reduced rate specified in that provision should apply.

The issue of the provisions of Article 120 of the VAT Act is also addressed in Resolution OG/005/177/PP2/443/60/2005 of the Head of the First Tax Office in Kielce dated December 2, 2005. The applicant inquired whether the supply of works of art he had created would be subject to the 7% VAT rate. At the same time, he conducted business activity in the field of advertising services, and for the previous month, he had also run a gallery where he supplied works of art, including those he himself created. The Head agreed with this position, citing Article 120, paragraph 3, item 1, letter a of the VAT Act, according to which: “The 7% tax rate shall also apply to: the supply of works of art by their creator or the creator’s heir (…).”

The problem of understanding the term “artist”, used in art. 120 sec. 1 item 1a of the VAT Act, also in relation to art. 120 sec. 2, was raised in the individual interpretation of 31 December 2008 issued by the Director of the Tax Chamber in Warsaw, reference number IPPP2/443-1597/08-2/KK. The question here, for the purposes of applying the 7% rate to imports, was: “Should the term “artist”, which appears in sec. 1 item 1a of art. 120 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, be understood in the same way as it functions in everyday language, or should the author of a painting, in order to be an artist within the meaning of the Act, meet other conditions, e.g. present some documentation certifying being an artist”? This is related to art. 68 a) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, as amended ), under which customs authorities, in order to verify the accuracy of the data contained in a customs declaration, have the right to request the declarant to present documents other than those annexed to the customs declaration. The Director of the Tax Chamber stated here that all definitions contained in paragraph 1 were created solely for the purposes of chapter 4. He did not agree with the applicant’s point of view that the term “artist” should be understood in its colloquial meaning. Finally, the director stated that the applicant company will have the right to apply the 7% value added tax rate upon import of works of art referred to in Art. 120 paragraph 1 item 1 lit. a of the VAT Act, provided that they are classified under the symbol of the Polish Classification of Products and Services PKWiU 92.31.10-00.1 or PCN 9701 or CN 9701 codes.

Summary

In summary, the current import tax levied on works of art is an exception to the standard VAT rate in Poland. A reduced rate of 7% is applied. Polish regulations in this area, primarily the Value Added Tax Act, are also being aligned with EU regulations, for example, those regarding the “margin procedure.” Given that the aforementioned Act of November 8, 2024, expired on January 26, 2026, it is possible that changes in this regard will occur after that date. However, no specific draft legislation has been prepared at this time.

#VAT
#ImportTax
#TaxLaw
#InternationalTrade
#CustomsLaw
#ArtMarket
#ArtLaw
#EURegulations
#TaxCompliance
#TradeCompliance
#CustomsDuties
#IndirectTax
#ArtBusiness
#GlobalTrade
#PolishLaw

Artykuł Import tax and works of art in Poland pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has introduced a new regulation called the 50% Rule, requiring every exporter to verify the ownership of parties to a transaction before shipping products. Previous name verification is no longer sufficient. BIS has expanded its end-user screening regulations to an unprecedented range of (and opaque) product and business relationship categories. If at least 50% of a company’s shares are owned by one or more entities on the BIS List or the Military End-User List (MEU), the company is automatically subject to the same restrictions as the owner. The BIS Entity List includes individuals, businesses, government organizations, and addresses subject to specific licensing requirements for the export, re-export, and transfer of goods within a given country. Previously, entities legally distinct from those on the list were not subject to licensing requirements, and the current expanded list includes thousands of subsidiaries, parent companies, and sister companies. This rule is intended to prevent situations where companies affiliated with sanctioned entities continue to operate freely because they are not named. This regulation is intended to fill a significant gap in the restricted entity lists and strengthen the overall control system in the United States. Furthermore, the introduction of this regulation significantly expands the licensing requirement; a recipient not listed on any of the above lists may still be subject to an export ban. Furthermore, if a company fails to verify the ownership of its contractors, it risks sanctions and loss of export privileges. Current tools are no longer sufficient, and an analysis of the ownership structure has become necessary. This regulation is similar to the 50% Rule of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). BIS also introduced a new “red flag”: if there’s uncertainty about a potential counterparty’s ownership structure, the transaction cannot proceed without additional verification or licensing. This requires firms to obtain ownership information, document their arrangements, and halt the transaction if there’s a lack of transparency.

There are companies and analytic firms that help various businesses and institutions identify connections between entities to prevent business risks or other regulatory violations. They enable clients to uncover hidden connections between entities and meet stringent regulatory accountability standards. They verify compliance with the BIS SO rule, thus including the same comprehensive data on ownership, methodology, and shareholder percentages. By leveraging corporate data from around the world, this model protects against potential regulatory risk and also provides immediate reach, flexible integration, and a proven methodology. It also checks entities against sanctions lists imposed by the United States, European Union countries or the United Kingdom, automatically marking those subject to sanctions and companies associated with them.

The process that takes place thanks to the solutions used by can be described in 4 stages:

– Collecting billions of documents from multiple databases (various types of company registers, customs and trade registers)

– Data analysis by the system, identification of names and combining information about the same people or companies

– Building graphical maps of relationships between entities, showing their connections: financial, ownership or transactional

– Detection of potential risks by the system: connections with sanctioned companies, money laundering risks, corruption, hidden ownership links and conflicts of interest.

In this way, there is possible rapid detection of complex and hidden connections between different business entities and risks, based on the largest databases commercially available.

In addition to using the above solutions, there are provided recommendations to clients, which can be defined in the following few steps:

– building a complete picture of the ownership of all trading partners

– identification of connections with sanctions lists

– aggregating the shares of individual owners to calculate the overall percentage

– verification if any of the owners have strict restrictions, then they will apply

– carrying out documentation of the entire process

– mapping: all entities

– updating various types of compliance systems

– implementation of tools for analyzing the ownership structure.

#ExportCompliance

#BISRegulations

#SanctionsCompliance

#TradeCompliance

#ExportControls

#DueDiligence

#OwnershipStructure

#RegulatoryCompliance

#RiskManagement

#GlobalTrade

#SupplyChainCompliance

#SanctionsScreening

#CorporateTransparency

#ComplianceStrategy

#BusinessRisk

Artykuł BIS 50% rule – what it means for cross border business pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The Polish Ministry of Health has published an official announcement (January 30, 2026) in which it explains its interpretation regarding aesthetic and remedial medicine procedures (i.e. treatments such as Botox, hyaluronic acid, mesotherapy, lasers, etc.).

In Poland, aesthetic medicine began to develop dynamically in the 1990s. During this period, the Polish Medical Society established a Section of Aesthetic Medicine, which since 2010 has operated as the Polish Society of Aesthetic Medicine and Anti-Aging. Since 2011, this society has certified aesthetic medicine physicians according to strictly defined criteria, including appropriate medical education, postgraduate training, and adherence to the principles of medical ethics. Aesthetic medicine emphasizes a holistic approach to the patient, combining appearance improvement with aging prevention and the promotion of mental health and quality of life.

One of the organizations representing aesthetic medicine practitioners in Europe is the Paris-based International Union of Aesthetic Medicine (UIME), which brings together over 20 aesthetic medicine societies from various countries. This organization works to standardize procedures, improve physician qualifications, and promote safe, evidence-based treatments in aesthetic medicine.

The development of the aesthetic services market and the professional structure

With technological advancements, improved economic conditions, and increasing globalization, aesthetic medicine procedures have begun to gain popularity. Initially, their primary goal was to reconstruct aesthetic defects resulting from trauma, disease, or congenital abnormalities. Over time, the scope of services has expanded significantly and now also includes procedures aimed at improving patient well-being, quality of life, and self-image.

The dynamic development of the aesthetic services market has influenced the change in the professional structure of people performing treatments, as well as the increase in demand for specialists performing these treatments.

The growing popularity of the cosmetology profession

With the growing interest in aesthetic medicine treatments, there is a growing interest in cosmetology programs offered by universities and online courses in aesthetic medicine. At the same time, the growing number of cosmetology offices and the collaboration between cosmetologists and aesthetic medicine physicians emphasize the importance of this profession in the structure of the healthcare system and health-promoting services. The popularity of cosmetology also requires continuous professional development, adapting to technological advancements, and adhering to ethical and legal standards, which are crucial for patient safety and satisfaction.

EU regulations

The aesthetic medicine industry, like any other industry, requires legal regulation. In the European Union, the following EU acts are of particular importance in this respect:

However, these are only selected EU regulations that impact the broader functioning of the beat industry. National law is essential to clarifying them.

The position of the Minister of Health regarding professional qualifications

Due to the growing popularity of aesthetic medicine treatments, the understatement of the regulation of the cosmetology profession, and social needs, on January 30, 2026, the Polish Minister of Health issued a communication regarding professional qualifications.

The Minister of Health’s announcement clearly states that aesthetic and restorative medicine procedures constitute healthcare services with a higher risk of complications and may only be performed by physicians and dentists with an indefinite license to practice their profession and appropriate certificates confirming completion of specialized training. These procedures have been a component of specialized programs for years, including in dermatology, venereology, and plastic surgery, and have been formalized as certified professional skills for physicians under applicable law.

The Ministry emphasizes that performing aesthetic and restorative medical procedures requires a complete diagnosis and exclusion of contraindications. Therefore, individuals without medical qualifications, including cosmetologists, aestheticians, and other non-medical professionals, are not authorized to perform these procedures, even if they have completed training and obtained certifications.

The announcement also indicates that certification of physicians in aesthetic and restorative medicine is based on a minimum standard approved by the Minister of Health, covering, among other things, injection procedures, the use of botulinum toxin, fillers, medical lasers, medical peels, and restorative procedures. These procedures must be performed only by registered medical entities.

The aim of the adopted regulations is to ensure maximum patient safety by clearly separating medical procedures from aesthetic cosmetology treatments with a low risk of complications and assigning full responsibility for the entire treatment process to the physician as a person with appropriate qualifications and authorizations.

The scope of powers of individual professional groups

The scope of authority of individual professional groups in the field of aesthetic services is determined primarily by the nature of the procedures performed, their degree of invasiveness, and the risk to the patient’s health. Physicians and dentists are authorized to provide healthcare services, including aesthetic and restorative medicine procedures, which involve interference with tissue integrity, the need for medical qualification of the patient, diagnosis, and treatment of potential complications. Despite the lack of comprehensive statutory regulation of the profession, cosmetologists are authorized to perform aesthetic, beauty, and preventive cosmetology procedures, provided these procedures do not meet the definition of a healthcare service and are not related to the diagnosis or treatment of diseases. Beauticians, on the other hand, perform non-invasive beauty treatments in accordance with their professional qualifications. Therefore, the boundaries of authority of individual professional groups are not solely determined by the procedure names, but by their actual medical nature, therapeutic purpose, and potential health risks, which is crucial for the safety of individuals using aesthetic services.

Therefore, the qualifications of a cosmetologist include performing treatments such as:

In practice, this means that a cosmetologist is competent to perform mainly facial and body care treatments, and to use devices whose manufacturer allows them to be used by cosmetologists.

According to the regulation, the distinction between:

Foreign solutions

The growing popularity of aesthetic medicine treatments, globalization and the development of tourism have contributed to the growth in popularity of medical tourism (even aesthetic medicine tourism offices specializing in mediation between the patient and the country where the procedure is performed have gained popularity), therefore foreign solutions regarding the regulation of the profession of cosmetologist, their competences, and that of a doctor or dentist and foreign legal solutions are arousing interest; here are some of them.

Beyond the western border, the situation proves equally rigorous. The Bundesärzteordnung (loosely translated, the Medical Code) is crucial. The related term, Arztovorbehalt (medical prerogative), means that, due to legal regulations, it can only be performed by a properly trained physician. According to these and other regulations in force in Germany and the EU, medical procedures reserved exclusively for physicians, which could once be performed by beauticians or cosmetologists, include:

The situation is similar in France, where popular filler or botulinum toxin treatments cannot be performed by people without medical qualifications, according to the position Société Française de Médecine Morphologique et Anti-Âge (SOFMMAA) and Société Française de Médecine Esthétique (SFME) – the use of Botox remains a treatment that requires a trained and experienced doctor to avoid negative effects.

Discussions

The regulation of the cosmetology profession, which was not addressed in the Minister’s announcement, remains controversial. The recognition of selected aesthetic treatments as health services within the meaning of the Medical Activity Act remains controversial, as they are intended to “improve health,” also understood as improving mental and social well-being. The broad interpretation, blurring the boundaries of these activities, is controversial. This issue also appears problematic for cosmetologists who have been performing treatments using the preparations listed in the Minister of Health’s announcement for years, and who base their professional careers, certifications, courses, and training on this type of work.

Forecasts and demands de lege ferenda

The dynamic growth of the aesthetic and restorative medicine market has fueled the need to formalize and legalize this industry. The announcement from the Minister of Health sends a clear signal aimed at resolving professional competencies and strengthening patient protection as a healthcare provider. It can be assumed that the next step will be to clarify professional regulations governing the cosmetology profession and its competencies.

From a de lege ferenda perspective, the following steps seem reasonable

Conclusions

It seems justified to emphasize that aesthetic medicine, as a health service, has been clearly included within the scope of medical practice and reserved for physicians. At the same time, the widespread and constantly evolving field of aesthetic cosmetology points to the need for legal regulation of the cosmetology profession. Balancing two values seems crucial: the freedom to practice the profession and the development of the services market, as well as the overarching principle of protecting the patient’s life and health.

Artykuł The new important position of the Polish Minister of Health regarding the authorization to perform aesthetic and remedial medicine procedures pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Regulation of concluding a sales contract by auction according to the Civil Code

Pursuant to Article 70¹ of the Polish Civil Code, a contract – including a sales contract – may be concluded through an auction or a tender. These two distinct contract-formation methods are distinguished by their specific characteristics, which include the multilateral and eliminatory nature of the procedure. Both procedures allow for the conclusion of a contract with the participant offering the most favorable terms from among many potential contractors, on equal terms and in compliance with the principles of free competition.

An auction is a process of concluding a contract through bidding, with participants submitting increasingly favorable offers throughout the auction. The process consists of three stages and includes:

1. auction announcement,
2. submitting offers (in the form of an auction),
3. selection of the offer by confirmation.

Due to the relatively binding nature of regulations, organizers often tailor the auction or tender process to their own needs and the specific nature of their business. This is achieved by establishing detailed rules in terms and conditions or regulations, which often deviate from code regulations – this is particularly true for online auctions.

The auction announcement must specify the time, place, and subject of the auction, as well as specify its terms and conditions or the method of making them available to participants. In practice, this means that the detailed rules of a given auction are most often specified in the regulations, rather than directly in the provisions of the Civil Code.

Pursuant to Article 70 ^{§ 2} of the Civil Code, an auction is conducted by submitting an offer to the organizer to conclude a contract, the content of which is determined by the provisions of the announcement, the auction terms, and the organizer’s own price declaration. Submitting an offer creates a binding offer within the meaning of Article 66 § 2 of the Civil Code, meaning that the organizer may accept it, leading to the conclusion of a contract.

A bid submitted during an auction ceases to be binding if another participant offers more favorable terms, unless the rules provide otherwise. The contract is concluded upon the acceptance of the bid, which occurs after three calls for further bids, when no other participant submits a higher bid.

As can be seen, the provisions of the Civil Code do not regulate the issue of establishing limits when concluding a contract through an auction procedure, and the commentaries to the provisions in question also do not contain any mention of this topic. In practice, the issue of setting limits will be regulated in the regulations and auction announcements and the conditions of specific auctions established there, and their provisions need to be analyzed.

The issue of setting limits on the ONE.BID website.

Referring to the regulations of the ONE.BID website, which allows auction houses to list their items and conduct online auctions, it is necessary to first explain several terms defined in the “glossary” of the regulations:

• Auction – a public sale of an Object organised by the Auction House in the form of an Auction, in which the buyer is the person who offers the highest price;
• Purchase Price – the final amount the buyer is obligated to pay for the Lot. This consists of the bid amount, the auction fee, and any additional fees specified by the Auction House;
• Starting Price – the amount at which the Bidding starts;
• Auction House – an entrepreneur cooperating with the Operator, usually engaged in trading in antiques, works of art or other collectibles, offering Objects for sale via the Website;
• Bidding – a procedure leading to the conclusion of a Sales Agreement initiated by the Auction House, in which the User declares the price at which they are willing to purchase the Auction Item. Bidding typically proceeds “upward” through Bidding. The User may submit subsequent Bids only if the current Bid and the sum of previous winning and winning Automatic Bids is less than or equal to the Spending Credit.
• Automatic Bidding – the process of automatic Bidding by the Website on behalf of the User, consisting in submitting subsequent Bids up to the amount indicated for a given Item by the User;
• Limit – an Automatic Bidding order for a given Object placed by the User and handled on his behalf by the Operator, up to the indicated amount;
•  Object – an item offered for sale by the Auction House via the Website or put up for Auction;
• Offer Automatic – the User’s order for Automatic Bidding of a given Lot before the start of the Auction or during the live bidding up to the amount indicated by the User;
• Operator – a limited liability company managing the ONE.BID Website;
• Bid Increase – submission of a bid by the User during the live Auction for a specified amount, which is the next permissible increment of the current price of the auctioned Item;
• Bidding Increment – the amount by which the price of the Object changes during the Auction;
• Auction Regulations – the regulations of the Auction House specifying the rules for conducting and participating in the Auction, the conditions for concluding Sales Agreements and the delivery of purchased Objects;
• User – a natural person, legal person or organizational unit without legal personality who reads the content presented on the Website or uses the services offered on the Website under the terms set out in the Regulations and applicable legal provisions;

These definitions are essential to understanding the specific regulations governing auctions conducted on ONE.BID. Importantly, the site’s terms and conditions must be followed in all auctions conducted using the site.

Items offered in the Auction are offered for sale by the Auction House. The Operator is not a party to these Auctions; it merely provides the technical means to enable Users to participate in the Auction and Bidding in real time via the Internet, together with other people gathered in the Auction House’s auction room. (§ 11. Point 2) Participation in the Auction is conditioned upon registration via the Website and acceptance of the Auction Rules. The Auction Rules are available on the registration form for each Auction.

Bidding begins at the Starting Price. The Auctioneer may enter subsequent bid increments according to the Auction House’s bidding table. Depending on the course of the Auction, the Auctioneer may, in accordance with the Auction Rules, decide on a different bid increment at his or her discretion (§ 11. Point 5).

Establishing a limit is covered by § 12, point 5, according to which a User who cannot personally participate in the Auction may – if permitted by the Auction Rules – place bidding orders with a Limit. At this point, an analysis should be conducted and the relationship between the concepts of “Limit,” “Automatic Bidding,” and “Automatic Bid.”

“Automatic Bidding” refers to an automated process in which the IT system participates in the auction on behalf of the bidder and submits successive bids up to the amount specified for a given item. This limit is the set limit, which constitutes the Automatic Bidding order. A bidder’s order to conduct the Automatic Bidding system up to the amount specified in the limit is called an “Automatic Bid.” It’s important to note that during the Automatic Bidding process, the system submits successive bids —this means that the system “outbids” other Auction participants’ bids according to the increment table specified by the organizer, until the limit is exceeded.

It’s also worth paying attention to the information found in the “Help Center” tab on the ONE.BID website. This section explains the terms and conditions in an accessible way for the website user, and they cannot be inconsistent with the terms and conditions. When asked, “What’s the difference between a limit and an offer?” the website answers that: With both a limit and a bid (Bid Now), the machine won’t immediately use the maximum bid you specify. It will bid on your behalf to win at the lowest possible price, and you’ll pay that amount if you win.

Similar regulations can be found in the regulations of other websites and auction houses – an example is the regulations of the Sopot Auction House created for the purposes of the “Varia Auction” of July 3, 2021. The following fragments of Part III (2) (A) of the regulations will be of significant importance:

• “For the convenience of Bidders unable to attend the Auction in person, the Auction House will process written limit bidding orders and telephone bidding orders. In such cases, Bidders who are absent should complete a “bidding order” form, which can be found in the Catalog, on the Auction House website, or obtained in the Auction House galleries.”
• If a Bidder decides to place a limit bid, he or she indicates the items to be bid on his or her behalf along with the maximum bid amount.
• The Auction House will make every effort to ensure that the Bidder purchases the selected Item at the lowest possible price, but not lower than the Guarantee Price (the minimum price for which the auctioned Item can be sold).
• After registering for the Online Auction, the Bidder may also leave a limit bidding order without having to complete a written “bidding order” form.

Considering the above regulations, it should be stated that a limit represents the maximum amount a bidder is willing to spend on a given item. In the case of online auctions on ONE.BID, the system makes subsequent bids until the limit is reached or the most advantageous offer is reached. However, does this mean that if a bidder who has set a limit bids higher, the organizer has the right to consider this as an increment of the maximum established limit?

Analysis of the auction of Władysław Reymont’s historical novel “The Year 1794. Insurrection.” [first edition 1918 with autograph and dedication].

The auction in question featured the first edition of Władysław Reymont’s novel “1794. Insurrection.” The auction took place on October 19, 2025. The starting price was PLN 2,200. One auction participant agreed with the organizer that his bid limit was PLN 4,800. After the auction began, a bid was raised to PLN 2,400 – according to the increment table, in the PLN 2,000-5,000 range, increments of PLN 200. The bidder with the established limit then placed another bid, and a knockdown occurred. According to the increment table, the bid amount should have been PLN 2,600, but the auction ended at PLN 4,800 (the limit set by the winning bidder).

Pursuant to the aforementioned § 12, point 5 of the ONE.BID website regulations, the Auctioneer may enter subsequent Bid Increments according to the Auction House’s increment table. Depending on the course of the Auction, the Auctioneer may, in accordance with the Auction Regulations, decide on a different increment at their own discretion.

The Auction Rules do not include a provision allowing the Auctioneer to place bids at a different rate than specified in the Bid Increments Table. The Rules, in Section 5, allow bidders to place bid limits – however, this applies to written orders. If a bidder wishes to set a limit for a given item in an Auction they are participating in via the ONE.BID service, they must complete a dedicated field next to the item.

This is where the concept of automatic bidding comes in, which, as we know from the analysis of the regulations, means that the system will automatically place subsequent raises (in the amount specified in the increment table) until a certain limit is reached.

In such a case, if the next Raise is made by a person with an established limit, it shall be analysed if the organizer has the right to consider his statement as an offer made at the maximum limit amount. The following rules should be taken into account:

– The Organizer has not reserved in the Auction Rules the possibility of making bid increments at a different amount than specified in the table of increments.

– The Auction Rules do not contain a provision according to which a person who has set a limit by making a raise is deemed to have placed a bid at the maximum limit.

The establishment of a limit in an online auction is a declaration of will within the meaning of Article 60 of the Civil Code and is subject to interpretation in the light of Article 65 § 1 of the Civil Code. According to this provision, a declaration of will should be interpreted in a way that is required by the circumstances. The circumstances in which it was submitted, the principles of social coexistence, and established customs. Considering the circumstances of online auctions and the fact that users accept the ONE.BID website’s regulations, which provide clear rules for establishing limits, it should be concluded that this declaration of intent should be interpreted taking into account the provisions of the regulations in question – by submitting a declaration of intent to establish a limit, the user intends to produce the legal consequences that result from it. Therefore, any other interpretation of this specific declaration of intent would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Civil Code. Established customs among shareholders indicate the significance of the “limit” institution and the legal consequences it produces (as evidenced by a similar regulation on this matter in the regulations of the Sopot Auction House).

Artykuł Can an online auctioneer charge the maximum amount set by a bidder if the amount of the item being bid is less than the last bid? pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Since January 1, 2012, a complete ban on advertising pharmacies and pharmacy outlets has been in effect in Poland. Information limited to the location of a pharmacy or pharmacy outlet and its opening hours is not considered advertising. Consequently, this ban covers not only advertising the pharmacy itself but also advertising its activities. This regulation was introduced in Article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law Act.

The justification for banning advertising of pharmacies and pharmacy outlets was the legislature’s assumption that pharmacies play a special role in the public health system, and therefore their operation should not be subject to mechanisms specific to the consumer goods market. It was argued that pharmacy advertising could lead to, among other things, excessive consumption of medicinal products, a weakening of the principles of rational pharmacotherapy, and an undesirable influence of economic factors on patient decisions.

Scope of the prohibition and addressees

The ban on advertising pharmacies is general and applies to all entities, not just pharmacies and pharmacy outlets. It covers anyone advertising a pharmacy or its business, including third parties such as press publishers. Consequently, a decision to cease advertising may be addressed to the publisher of the advertising material, even if the pharmacy did not commission it.

Positions on the ban

Supporters of the ban

Some in the pharmaceutical community consider the introduction of a ban on pharmacy advertising a desirable solution, viewing it as a significant step toward restoring pharmacies to their proper role in the healthcare system. Proponents of strict regulation argue that advertising practices used before 2012 were becoming increasingly intense and aggressive, contradicting the nature and function of pharmacies. They also point out that pharmacies’ marketing activities may have led to artificially increasing the consumption of medicinal products.

Critics of the ban

Critics of the current wording of Article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law take a different view, accusing this regulation of being excessively broad in scope. In their view, the ban on pharmacy advertising constitutes an unjustified restriction on the constitutional freedom of economic activity and is inconsistent with European Union law as a means of restricting the freedom of establishment and the provision of services in a manner disproportionate to the intended purpose. Furthermore, the lack of a legal definition of pharmacy advertising, analogous to the definition of medicinal product advertising, is significant. Determining the meaning of this concept is left to the judicial practice of pharmaceutical inspection bodies and administrative courts, which, during the initial period of the regulation’s validity, led to divergent interpretations, particularly damaging to businesses. Currently, in light of established case law, pharmacy advertising is broadly understood as any activity that may encourage customers to purchase goods or use services.

Additionally, it is argued that the arguments underlying the introduction of an absolute ban on pharmacy advertising are not entirely convincing in the context of the permissibility and prevalence of advertising of medicinal products available in pharmacies in the mass media. The doctrine also expresses the view that the legislator’s actual intention may have been to limit intra-industry competition in the area of pharmacy advertising and the activities they conduct, as indicated by public statements by representatives of the pharmaceutical self-government.

Enforcement of the ban and case law

Enforcement of the pharmacy advertising ban was entrusted to provincial pharmaceutical inspectors, who, in practice, developed a broad interpretation of the term “advertising.” This encompasses not only classic promotional activities but also various forms of informational communication. In particular, information about price reductions, loyalty programs, or preventive campaigns was deemed prohibited. Violation of this ban can result in an administrative fine of up to PLN 50,000 and an administrative decision ordering the cessation of advertising (Article 94a and Article 129b, Section 1 of the Pharmaceutical Law).

In its judgment of 20 July 2017, file reference II GSK 2964/15, the Supreme Administrative Court found that “The basic element allowing for the conclusion that there has been a violation of the ban on advertising a pharmacy or its activities is the intention to attract potential customers to purchase a medicinal product or medicinal product in a specific pharmacy, increase the consumption of medicinal products, and thus increase the turnover of that pharmacy.” In its judgment of 29 September 2017 (file reference II GSK 3346/15), the Supreme Administrative Court found that there had been a violation of information regarding the fulfillment of prescriptions and the possibility of purchasing cheaper equivalents of medicinal products, and the prominence of the word “cheaper” through the use of bold font in relation to the remaining content gave the message a promotional nature.

The total ban on advertising pharmacies is still in force in Poland, even though from the moment it was introduced it raised significant doubts as to whether such interference with the constitutionally protected freedom of economic activity and the principle of proportionality should be permitted.

Complaint to the European Commission and CJEU ruling

Some pharmacy businesses questioned the blanket nature of the advertising ban, filing a complaint with the European Commission. They believed the regulation violated European Union law, particularly by introducing disproportionate restrictions on commercial communications. In response to these allegations, in January 2019 , the European Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Polish government, citing a violation of regulations governing the use of commercial information as part of an information society service provided by regulated professions, as well as a violation of the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services.

In the absence of legislative action on the Polish side, the European Commission filed a complaint against Poland with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court upheld the complaint in its entirety, finding that Poland had failed to fulfill its obligations under EU law.

The CJEU emphasized that while Member States have the authority to regulate pharmacy advertising to protect public health, they cannot impose an absolute ban on it. In particular, it pointed out that, with respect to online advertising, national regulations cannot exclude the use of information society services. However, in the case of non-electronic advertising, Polish regulations were deemed excessively restrictive and insufficiently justified by the objective of protecting public health.

Furthermore, the Court noted that European Union law encourages Member States to define the scope of data that may be transferred as part of commercial communications, while respecting the rules of regulated professions. While these rules may define the content and form of commercial communications, they cannot lead to the introduction of a general and complete ban on such communications. Consequently, the CJEU called on Poland to immediately adapt its national legislation to the requirements of European Union law.

Draft amendment to the Pharmaceutical Law

In December 2025, the Ministry of Health published a draft amendment to the Pharmaceutical Law, which proposes abandoning the current broad ban on advertising by pharmacies and pharmacy outlets in favor of regulations specifying detailed rules for permissible advertising by these entities. However, the public consultation process and further processing of the bill have been significantly extended. The European Commission has set Poland a two-month deadline to respond, with failure to do so potentially resulting in a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union, along with a request for financial sanctions. Given that the Ministry of Health has not yet published the results of the public consultation, the realistic entry into force of the new regulations is estimated at the end of the first quarter of this year at the earliest. Both the Ministry of Health and the pharmacists’ self-government have publicly commented on the need and willingness to introduce changes to the current model for regulating pharmacy advertising.

The draft amendment also provides for detailed restrictions on the content and form of advertising by pharmacies and pharmacy outlets. According to the proposed regulations, advertising may not:

Artykuł The legal situation of advertisements of pharmacies and pharmacy outlets in Poland – expected changes to liberalize advertisement of pharmacies pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.