Publication date: December 12, 2025
The main differences between these contracts
An employment contract and a contract of mandate have their origins in two different regulations. An employment contract is regulated in the Labor Code (Chapter 2, Section 1), while a contract of mandate has its essential negotiating power in Title XXI of the Civil Code. However, an employment contract requires the application of the provisions of the Civil Code regarding, for example, defects in a declaration of intent (Articles 82-88), negotiations, or offers (Articles 66-72). As the Supreme Court noted in its judgment of November 29, 2017, I PK 358/16, LEX No. 2433081, in addition to personal subordination between employer and employee, legal issues are also important due to the various legal consequences these contracts have. A contract of mandate does not obligate the principal and the contractor to conclude an agreement, although regardless of the name of the contract, if it contains the requirements of Article 22 § 1 of the Labor Code, it becomes an employment contract.
More
Publication date: December 12, 2025
The right to withdraw from a contract, which may result from a statute or other generally applicable act or from a contractual provision between the parties, also requires analysis in terms of the type of relationship (B2B, B2C). When it comes to relationships between businesses and consumers, the most important legal acts regulating such relationships in a cross-border context are European regulations, in particular Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (hereinafter: Directive 2011/83/EU).
More
Publication date: December 12, 2025
Business concentrations are common and significant phenomena that constitute a part of modern economic activity. They include takeovers, mergers, the acquisition of assets, and even the creation of joint ventures. Their primary goal is typically to develop companies and increase competitiveness and efficiency. They can also lead to a restriction of market competition. Therefore, the legislature has introduced the obligation to notify the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) of any intended concentration in cases where it may affect competition conditions in Poland. This article will discuss when an enterprise must notify the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), what information should be included, and the procedure conducted by the President of the UOKiK.
More
Publication date: December 02, 2025
More
Publication date: December 02, 2025
Planning, analysis, and software design; work on program development and its implementation; integration of the software with other systems and support for the implementation of system updates – taxation issues
Facts in the case
The complainant ran a business whose primary purpose was to produce computer programs and implement programming projects. As part of this business, based on his knowledge of information technology and experience in developing solutions related to computer program development, he accepted programming assignments for his clients. He requested an individual tax ruling from the Director of the National Tax Information Service regarding personal income tax. For the purposes of describing the factual circumstances, the complainant divided his business into individual stages, including: planning, analysis, and software design; work on program development and its implementation; integration of the software with other systems and support for the implementation of system updates. As a result of this work, computer programs were created, understood as works under Article 1 of the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act. Considering the broad definition of a computer program, the complainant stated that each of the indicated results of the work constituted a work and was protected (Article 74 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act). According to the complainant, the software he produced was based on individual, original ideas, thus creating new applications.
More
