The EU has provided EUR 450 million (USD 503 million) for weapons, including air defence systems, anti-tank weapons, ammunition and other military equipment for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. A further EUR 50 million will be provided for fuel, bulletproof vests, helmets and first aid kits.
Since the EU Treaties do not allow the use of the EU budget for military purposes, the Community is introducing an instrument called the “European Peace Fund”, which allows the provision of military aid of up to EUR 5 billion.
The United States is also increasing its supplies and is providing an additional USD 350 million (EUR 313 million) in military aid, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and ammunition.
A power of attorney enables participants in proceedings to authorise other persons, in particular persons with a professional background, to represent them before the court, which undoubtedly speeds up and streamlines the entire proceedings. In Poland, it is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to art. 89, a document of the power of attorney, with the principal’s signature or a certified copy thereof, shall be attached to the case files at the first procedural action (first pleading). However, after the commencement of the proceedings, it may also be granted orally at a court session by making a statement and enclosing it to the transcript of the hearing. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure governing the content of the power of attorney document. However, it is assumed, that the document should specify the person of the proxy and the principal, as well as its subject matter – whether it is a general, or to conduct particular cases or to perform certain procedural actions. Particularly controversial is the fact that the Polish Code does not impose an obligation to indicate the place or date of preparation of the power of attorney document. In practice, however, it is assumed, that the date of issuance of the document should be indicated.
The President of the Polish Office for the Protection of Competition and Consumers issued two decisions concerning agreements limiting competition between truck dealers.
The two decisions issued relate to collusion by DAF car dealers. In the first case, the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (Polish: UOKiK) found that five companies: DBK of Olsztyn, ESA Trucks Polska of Komorniki (Wielkopolskie Voivodeship), TB Truck & Trailer Serwis of Wolica (Mazowieckie Voivodeship), Van Tilburg-Bastianen Groep of Breda, the Netherlands, and WTC of Długołęka (Dolnośląskie Voivodeship) had entered into an agreement restricting competition. Entrepreneurs have divided the market among themselves. Together they agreed that each would sell DAF trucks in a specific area and not compete for customers in other parts of Poland. They also exchanged pricing information. In the case of four companies (excluding ESA Trucks Poland), the arrangements also concerned the exchange of information on bids submitted in tenders.
HOW DID THE CARTEL WORK?
HOW TO RECOGNIZE A PYRAMID SCHEME?
Pyramid promotional schemes involve consumers being persuaded to participate in a “project” in exchange for the promise of remuneration or other benefits, which depend primarily on bringing more people into the scheme rather than on the sale or consumption of products. Such schemes most often offer investments in tokens, cryptocurrencies, educational or language packages, apartments, etc.
The scheme of operation of a pyramid scheme is basically as follows: you put money into a supposed investment, you refer other people, and you get paid for introducing them. Your money is not actually invested, it is used to compensate the people who brought you into the system. At the same time, your compensation comes from the contributions of people you have directly and indirectly referred. In this way, it is you, your friends and your friends of friends who are funding a system that is not really investing anything. Therefore, after a period of time, the system has to fail because the money paid in is not invested in any assets and does not make a profit. The money goes to the organizers and the highest position in the chain. The system works as long as the number of people joining and contributing money increases exponentially, which is not sustainable. As a result, the system collapses and the money invested is lost.
In this case plaintiff AMA was a Nevada limited liability company that produces and distributes “adult entertainment over the Internet.” It owns several online websites where paying customers can view AMA’s materials. Its videos are copyrighted as audiovisual works. It also displays the company’s trademark in the corner of the screen.
Defendant was a citizen and resident of Poland, who operated ePorner, an adult video website, through MW Media, a Polish civil law partnership.
What is the case about?
AMA discovered that ePorner.com (“ePorner”), an international website where users can search for and watch adult movies displayed AMA copyrighted materials. At the time this lawsuit was filed ePorner allowed users to anonymously post adult videos. The website does not charge visitors. Instead of it, it generates revenue solely through advertising. Users of ePorner.com see ads based on their perceived location. For example, visitors who believe they are in the United States see selected ads in English.
AMA Multimedia, LLC (“AMA”) appealed the district court’s dismissal of its copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition action against the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Important is the fact that AMA was unable to determine who owned and operated ePorner, so, AMA sued all defendants as Doe Defendants and Roe Corporations in the United States. The district court permitted AMA to conduct early discovery to ascertain who owned the domains which forwarded visitors to ePorner.com. Then AMA discovered that two companies located in Arizona, GoDaddy.com and Domains by Proxy, were used to register the domains and privatize the owner’s identity. The Polish defendant was the registrant of the domains.
Path to resolve the case