Analysis of key changes for business managers

We have analyzed the proposed changes to criminal procedure, which introduce a new structure for conducting proceedings, moving away from the current, restrictive model. The foundation of the amendment is the liberalization of regulations and the strengthening of procedural guarantees for suspects, which is a direct response to the need to implement EU directives and restore the adversarial standard.

Compared to the current state of affairs, the draft law shifts away from the inquisitorial model and instead provides real legal protection for economic participants. These changes are crucial for individuals serving on corporate boards, effectively increasing their legal security in the area of risks inherent in running a business.

Recent years in Polish criminal procedure have been characterized by the primacy of procedural efficiency over individual rights, leading to a systematic tightening of discipline. This has manifested itself, among other things, in the facilitation of the use of preventive measures and the admission of evidence obtained illegally. Project 1600 makes a systemic shift towards strengthening citizen guarantees, restoring the principle of full equality of the parties and fair litigation. For the business sector, this means a real opportunity to actively shape their defenses at the pre-trial stage, instead of adopting a solely reactive approach.

A key element of this reform is to address years of neglect related to the implementation of the so-called EU defense directives (Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ L 294, 2013, p. 1)). The existing regulations failed to meet European standards, which became the basis for the European Commission to initiate proceedings for Poland’s violation of its treaty obligations. The most important change in this regard is Article 245 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that a detained person be immediately allowed to contact a defense attorney and have a direct conversation. As the bill’s justification indicates, detention is a criminal act aimed at prosecuting, and therefore a lawyer or legal advisor providing assistance at this stage has full defense status. Furthermore, the introduction of mandatory on-call duty for lawyers and legal advisors, as defined in Article 245 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, guarantees effective legal assistance from the very first minute of the proceedings.

This solution is important for management bodies, as the isolation of an organization’s leader creates the risk of paralyzing the entity’s decision-making. The guarantee of immediate legal assistance enables the implementation of crisis management procedures and significantly reduces the risk of submitting flawed procedural declarations with a high degree of economic complexity.

Project 1600 introduces systemic mechanisms to limit the arbitrariness of imposing preventive measures in isolation. A significant change is the increase in the threshold for a severe sentence from 8 to 10 years (Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the requirement to demonstrate a real risk of perversion in each case. This eliminates the automatic nature of detention in commercial cases, obliging the court to assess whether the severity of the impending sanction actually poses a threat to the course of proceedings in the specific factual circumstances.

The new wording of Article 248 §§ 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure serves to discipline law enforcement agencies. It introduces an absolute obligation to release a detainee if, within twenty-four hours (reduced from the current forty-eight) of being brought to the attention of the court, they are not served with a detention order and justification. The legislature establishes an absolute prohibition on re-arrest based on the same facts and evidence. This solution curbs the practice of circumventing procedural deadlines by repeatedly detaining an individual under the same circumstances. For governing bodies, this regulation guarantees the stability of their procedural status and protects personal freedom through repeated isolation.

The reform is complemented by the expansion of evidence disclosure. The amendment to Article 156 § 5a of the Code of Criminal Procedure removes the previous restriction on the exclusion of witness statements from accessible files. The current wording requires the authority to immediately provide the suspect and defense attorney with evidence attached to the arrest request. Restoring full equality of arms allows the defense to substantively refute the prosecution’s entire case, rather than select fragments. For management, implementing these rigors provides fundamental protection against the use of isolation as a pressure tool, directly protecting the reputation and operational stability of the company.

The planned amendment introduces a fundamental change to the Polish criminal process, restoring the primacy of procedural fairness to establishing the material truth at all costs. A key element of the reform is the definitive rejection of the admissibility of so-called “fruits of the poisonous tree,” which directly implements the fair trial standard. Under the current legal framework, shaped by the controversial wording of Article 168a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence cannot be deemed inadmissible solely on the basis that it was obtained in violation of procedural rules or through a prohibited act. Therefore, previous case law permitted the procedural validation of evidence from unlawful sources, provided it was not obtained as a result of the most serious crimes (such as murder or deprivation of liberty). The amendment replaces this model with an absolute prohibition on using materials obtained as a result of a prohibited act. This excludes the possibility of subsequently deeming evidence obtained in violation of the law admissible and prevents law enforcement agencies from remedying procedural deficiencies by invoking an overriding public interest.

In the area of operational control, the reform introduces adequacy rules, which significantly modifies the current procedure for handling incidental evidence. The previous regime of Article 168b of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for almost unlimited use of wiretapping materials in cases involving any crime, even if they did not fall within the list of acts justifying the use of operational control. This led to a phenomenon referred to in the doctrine as fishing expeditions, where surveillance ordered in high-stakes cases became a gateway to seeking marginal violations, such as fiscal violations, which would not, in themselves, legitimize such a profound interference with civil liberties. The amendment thus compels the prosecutor to exercise a higher level of investigative diligence, shifting the defense’s focus from substantive analysis of evidence to reviewing the legality of its acquisition.

For the business sector, the implementation of these solutions brings enormous guarantee benefits, primarily in the form of protecting the integrity of business communications and eliminating uncertainty as to the procedural status of managers.

The analysis is based on the standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of Article 6 of the ECHR, as well as the constitutional principle of proportionality and the right to privacy. The new wording reflects the desire to civilize criminal procedure, where the reliability of state authorities becomes paramount over the ad hoc effectiveness of the public prosecutor, which is the foundation of economic security in a state governed by the rule of law.

The overall proposed changes to criminal procedure should be viewed as a significant strengthening of the legal position of entrepreneurs and management. The shift from an inquisitorial model to a fully adversarial and transparent judicial process significantly minimizes the risk of procedural abuses, which could previously be used as a tool for extraneous pressure in commercial disputes. The reinstatement of strict evidentiary prohibitions and the shortening of procedural deadlines for deprivation of liberty compel law enforcement agencies to adhere to a higher standard of diligence, which directly translates into the operational stability of businesses. Under the new legal framework, the most crucial element of a defense strategy is not only the substantive refutation of allegations but, above all, rigorous oversight of the legality of the state’s operational actions.

Sources:

Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1);

Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1);

Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ EU L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1, OJ EU L 201, 30.7.2019, p. 47, OJ EU L 39, 21.02.2022, p. 1 and OJ EU L 2023/2843, 27.12.2023);

Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ L 65, 11.03.2016, p. 1);

Artykuł Criminal Procedure Reform (Project 1600) – Polish Standards of Protection in Commercial Matters pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

1. Reports only via e-Sanepid

Every dietary supplement introduced to the market for the first time must be reported to the Chief Sanitary Inspector (GIS). Until now, various forms were acceptable – paper or electronic, with a handwritten or electronic signature. After the amendment comes into effect, the only acceptable method will be the e-Sanepid platform.

What does this mean in practice?

• It is necessary for each person submitting notifications to have a qualified electronic signature or a trusted profile.
• All communication with sanitary inspection bodies – letters, decisions, and confirmations – will be handled through the platform account. The moment of notification submission will be clearly confirmed with an official receipt, eliminating disputes over the deadline.
• Companies that have previously used paper forms or traditional correspondence must immediately switch to the new channel and ensure appropriate employee training.

The change also concerns the timing of the notification obligation: the previous option to notify the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) at the stage of intended product introduction is no longer available. The obligation now arises at the time of actual introduction to the market.

2. Strict deadlines and automatic presumption of irregularities

The amendment introduces a completely new mechanism for conducting investigations. This change has the greatest potential to surprise companies without effective internal compliance procedures.

How does the new mechanism work?

If the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate initiates an investigation and requests the entity to submit a scientific opinion, the company has exactly 14 days to submit an application to an accredited scientific unit – at the same time forwarding a copy of it to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate.

The mechanism for presuming irregularities is a significant innovation. Previously, a company’s inaction during the proceedings did not automatically result in any legal consequences – the proceedings could drag on for years. Following the amendment, any failure to meet the 14-day deadline will lead to direct negative consequences, regardless of whether the product is safe.

3. Advertising without reporting? A fine of nearly one million zlotys

This change directly impacts brands engaging in active digital marketing. Previously, advertising or presenting a dietary supplement without prior notification to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) was punishable by a fine (a misdemeanor). Following the amendment, this becomes grounds for imposing an administrative fine – with new, significantly higher penalties.

What exactly is prohibited?

The amendment penalizes not only the sale of a supplement without reporting it to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS), but also the mere advertising or presentation of it if the notification has not been effectively submitted. In other words:

• Sponsored post on Instagram or Facebook promoting a new supplement before notification = grounds for an administrative penalty.
• Product page in the online store visible to the public before successful reporting to GIS = risk of infringement.
• Promotional materials sent to wholesalers or distributors before GIS is notified = potential infringement.
• Influencer marketing initiated before the date of effective notification = liability on the part of the entity commissioning the campaign.

Prohibition on suggesting medicinal properties – wider scope

The amendment expands liability for violations of advertising requirements from labeling to the entire marketing message. Previously, sanctions primarily covered incorrect packaging labeling. Following the amendment, a company is responsible for every communication channel – online advertising, point-of-sale materials, newsletters, or YouTube videos – if the message suggests that a varied diet does not provide sufficient nutrients, or if a supplement is presented as a medicinal product.

4. Public register – the company’s reputation under public scrutiny

The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) has maintained a register of dietary supplements before, but the amendment will significantly expand its scope and availability. The data will be published on the e-Sanepid platform and will include:

• the name of the product and its qualitative composition (without quantitative data – the recipe remains protected),
• product qualification proposed by the entity,
• information about the initiation or ongoing investigation,
• data on the detection of a prohibited ingredient.

5. Fines – increase by over 330%

The maximum administrative fine for violating food safety regulations is increasing from 30 to 100 times the average monthly salary. At the current salary level, this means:

The new penalties are imposed administratively (not as fiscal or misdemeanor offenses), which means faster proceedings and no need to prove intentional guilt. A mere finding of a violation is sufficient. The increased level of sanctions has a real deterrent effect, especially for companies with turnover in the tens of millions of zlotys.

The biggest risks – a practical overview

Artykuł CLIENT ALERT Dietary supplements market in Poland Amendments to food safety regulations | May 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The Act amending the Act on the National Cybersecurity System aims to implement Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 (NIS Directive 2) and the partial application of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1366 of 11 March 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The amendment to the KSC Act significantly expands the scope of the regulations and introduces new obligations in the field of cybersecurity management. The changes include, among other things, the implementation of risk management systems and expanded incident reporting requirements. The new regulations also strengthen the powers of supervisory authorities and significantly increase the maximum amount of financial penalties. It also introduces liability for the management staff (manager) of an entity. In practice, this requires certain entities to take steps to comply with the new regulations.

The first experiences of entrepreneurs after the amendment came into force – practical conclusions

The few months that the amended Act on the National Cybersecurity System has been in effect demonstrate that the biggest challenge for businesses is no longer the analysis of the new regulations, but their practical implementation. For many organizations, the adaptation process began with a seemingly simple task: determining whether a given entity is even subject to the new regulations. In practice, this step proves to be one of the most problematic.

Under the previous legal framework, many businesses awaited a formal administrative decision confirming their status as an essential service operator. This approach is no longer appropriate. The status of a key or important entity stems directly from the Act, and obligations arise regardless of whether the business has already been entered on the register. This means that the responsibility for properly assessing their own situation rests primarily with the business itself.

Practice also shows that many companies focus solely on the issue of being entered into the register of key and important entities. However, entry itself is not the purpose of the regulation. The greatest challenges remain the actual implementation of an information security management system, conducting a risk analysis, developing incident response procedures, and adequately documenting the actions taken. In the future, supervisory authorities will primarily assess an organization’s actual level of compliance with the Act, not merely the formal fulfillment of registration obligations.

Another significant change is the significant increase in management responsibility. Management can no longer treat cybersecurity as a matter solely within the purview of IT departments. The Act requires active management involvement in the organization of the cybersecurity management system, oversight of its operation, and provision of adequate organizational and financial resources. In practice, this requires regular reporting on cybersecurity issues at the management level and documentation of decisions made.

Supply chain security is also becoming increasingly important. Businesses are required not only to secure their own IT systems but also to consider the risks arising from collaboration with IT service providers, cloud computing operators, software vendors, and outsourcing providers. In practice, this means reviewing supplier contracts, verifying the security measures in place, and implementing appropriate provisions for incident management and crisis cooperation.

It’s also noticeable that a growing number of businesses are choosing to conduct internal compliance audits before the statutory deadlines expire. This approach allows for early identification of organizational and technical gaps, reducing the risk of subsequent violations and costly remedial actions.

In practice, the best solution is to treat the implementation of the Act’s requirements not as a one-time project, but rather as a process encompassing regular risk analysis, procedure updates, employee training, and ongoing oversight of the organization’s security. This approach not only increases compliance but also significantly reduces the risk of cybersecurity incidents.

It’s worth emphasizing that the current transition period should be used to calmly prepare organizations for the full application of the new regulations. Postponing implementation until the final months before the statutory deadlines expire can be risky, especially for large organizations where implementing information security management systems requires the involvement of multiple departments and adequate time to prepare procedures and documentation.

Change in the circle of entities to which the Act applies.

Under the previous wording of the Act, an administrative decision was required to recognize an entity as an essential service operator (Article 5 of the Act before the amendment). Currently, the group of key and important entities is determined automatically (ex lege). The criteria for qualifying an entity as essential are found in Article 5, Section 1, and as an important entity in Article 5, Section 2 of the Act. It is possible that an entity meets the criteria for both key and important entities; such an entity is considered a key entity under Article 5, Section 4. When attempting to qualify entities, the Act also refers to EU regulations, particularly Regulation 651/2014/EU, which defines SMEs. Therefore, the primary criteria taken into account will be the number of employees and annual turnover. It is also necessary to refer to Annexes 1 and 2 of the Act, which precisely define the categories of entrepreneurs in specific sectors and subsectors.

The added Article 5a in paragraph 1 provides that key and important entities are subject to the obligations arising from the Act if they reside in the territory of the Republic of Poland or conduct their business in the territory of the Republic of Poland.

Articles 7 et seq. regulate matters related to the list of key and important entities. Before the amendment, the list contained only operators of essential services; now it includes key and important entities. Unlike the previous legal status, in which entry was made at the request of the authority responsible for cybersecurity (former wording of Article 7, paragraph 3 of the Act), entry is now made at the request of a key or important entity within six months of the occurrence of the conditions (Article 7c, paragraph 1 of the Act). Ex officio entry will generally only apply to existing operators of essential services, trust service providers, telecommunications companies, and public entities. This means that for entities meeting the conditions on the date the amendment comes into force, the deadline for submitting an application is October 3, 2026. Pursuant to the Announcement of the Minister of Digitization of April 8, 2026, regarding the schedule for submitting applications for entry in the register of key and important entities and for key or important entities to commence using the ICT system , self-registration on the list is possible from May 7, 2026, to October 3, 2026. The platform operating in the S46 system is available at https://wykaz-ksc.gov.pl/ . By April 3, 2027, key and important entities are required to commence using the ICT system specified in Art. 46 sec. 1 of the Act. This deadline begins depending on whether the entities were parties to agreements regarding the use of the ICT system referred to in Art. 46 sec. 1 of the Act concluded before April 3, 2026. For the former, the possibility of using the system was opened on April 8, 2026, and for the latter, this possibility will be available from June 12, 2026 (point 2 of the Communication of the Minister of Digital Affairs).

If an entity that meets the criteria for being considered a key or important entity fails to submit an application for entry, the authority responsible for cybersecurity may enter the entity on the list ex officio (Article 7j, paragraph 1 of the Act). Failure to comply with certain obligations related to the list (failure to timely complete missing data on the list or failure to correct data despite a request or failure to submit an application for entry) may result in the imposition of a substantial fine (Article 73, paragraph 1, point 1 and Article 73, paragraph 1a, point 1 of the Act). The catalogue of data to be included on the list has also been changed (expanded) (Article 7, paragraph 2).

In practice: The expansion of the scope of entities and the shift from administrative decision-making to automatic regulation mean that many entities may be subject to the Act without formal confirmation of this status. In practice, independent qualification analysis and continuous monitoring of compliance with statutory criteria become crucial. An incorrect assessment (or failure to comply) may result in exposure to sanctions (severe fines).

New responsibilities for cybersecurity management.

Duties

Chapter 3, which governs the obligations of key and important entities, has been expanded, and Chapters 3a and 3b have been added, addressing domain name registration service providers and public entities. Article 8 of the Act governs obligations related to the implementation of an information security management system. Compared to the previous legal framework, numerous obligations have been added. The responsibility of the manager of a key or important entity for the performance of its cybersecurity obligations has been introduced (Article 8c of the Act), and the manager’s responsibilities have also been defined (Articles 8d–8f of the Act).

The regulations regarding incident reporting have also changed. A key or important entity classifies a given incident as serious (after meeting the requirements of Article 2, Section 7 of the Act), then issues an early warning, reports the incident, and finally submits a final report on the handling of the serious incident to the CSIRT (a three-step reporting model instead of the previous one-step model – Article 11 of the Act).

Deadlines

Pursuant to Article 15 of the Act, key entities must conduct a security audit of the information system used in the service provision process at least once every three years. For key entities that were not previously classified as key service operators, the first audit should be conducted within 24 months of the date the conditions are met (Article 16, point 2, therefore, for these entities, the deadline for conducting the audit is April 3, 2028).

The Act amending the KSC Act establishes a 12-month transition period during which key and important entities have time to fulfill the obligations specified in Chapter 3 of the Act (except for the obligation to conduct the first audit, which entities have 24 months to conduct). Therefore, with respect to obligations such as implementing an information security management system, risk assessment, implementing technical and organizational measures, reporting and managing incidents, and verifying personnel’s criminal records, the deadline for compliance with these regulations expires on April 3, 2027.

In practice: The imposed obligations require the implementation of an information security management system. Furthermore, the single-tier incident reporting system has been changed, replaced by a more complex three-tier system. Essential entities will be required to conduct audits. Importantly, entities that were not previously considered essential service operators will be required to conduct an audit within two years of the amendment’s entry into force. However, most of the new obligations will have to be implemented by April 3, 2027. Failure to comply with these obligations will result in the manager of the relevant entity being held liable.

Change in the amount and grounds for imposing fines.

Until April 2, 2026, the maximum amount of the fine imposed on entities (only for the most serious violations) was PLN 1 million (former wording of Article 73, paragraph 5 in fine). Currently, the maximum amount of the fine is, as a rule, EUR 10 million (Article 73, paragraph 3 of the Act), and for the most serious violations, up to PLN 100 million (Article 73, paragraph 5 in fine of the Act).

With the imposition of a large number of obligations on key and important entities, the list of violations for which a fine may be imposed has also been expanded (Article 73 of the Act).

The new provisions on fines come into force only two years after the entry into force of the Act (i.e. from April 3, 2028).

In practice: Increasing the amount of fines disciplines key entities and important entities to take their cybersecurity obligations very seriously. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the amended regulations on fines will not enter into force until April 3, 2028.

Changes in the supervision and control of key and important entities.

Chapter 11 of the Act, which deals with the supervision and control of key and important entities, has been significantly expanded. Some provisions remain unchanged (the requirement to apply the provisions of the Entrepreneurs’ Law or the Act on Audit in Government Administration, the powers of the person conducting the audit, most of the obligations of audited entities, and provisions regarding audit protocols and post-audit recommendations).

Important changes

The most important changes in the scope of supervision include a significant expansion of Article 53, which describes the powers of the authority responsible for cybersecurity regarding supervision and oversight of key entities. It empowers the competent authority to issue various types of administrative decisions aimed at enforcing the provisions of the Act. This article also contains a number of procedural provisions defining the nature of the proceedings. Generally, the regulations contained in this article apply only to key entities, but as stated in Article 53, paragraph 17, certain provisions also apply to inspections of important entities. Article 53, paragraph 3 states that supervision of key entities is both post-empty and preventive, while for important entities, supervision is only post-empty.

A new obligation for both key and important entities is the information obligation specified in Article 53c, which requires a key or important entity to provide certain data at the request of the authority responsible for cybersecurity.

A new institution is the ad hoc review added in Article 59c, which may be carried out only if the conditions specified in the cited Article are met.

In practice: Strengthening the powers of supervisory authorities and introducing ad hoc inspections means increased risk of inspections and the need to maintain constant readiness to demonstrate compliance with regulations. Entities should also prepare for more frequent requests for information from authorized bodies.

Minor changes

Chapter 10 has been amended and Chapters 10a – 10c have been added, but they do not contain any standards addressed to entities and are therefore not relevant from a practical point of view.

Several changes concern Chapter 12 concerning the Government Plenipotentiary for Cybersecurity and the Cybersecurity Board, but these changes do not have any significant impact on the entities.

Article 12a has been added, addressing specific measures to ensure cybersecurity at the national level. It primarily contains provisions on recommendations from the Government Plenipotentiary for Cybersecurity (Article 67a), the procedure for designating a supplier as a high-risk supplier (Articles 67b–67f), and a safeguarding order in the event of a critical incident (Articles 67g–67i).

Minor changes also apply to the Cybersecurity Strategy of the Republic of Poland (Articles 68–72). The changes primarily concern the content and method of developing the strategy, as well as the frequency of strategy reviews (2.5 years instead of the previous 2 years).

The amendment to the Act on the National Emergency Response Plan creates the basis for the adoption of the National Emergency Response Plan (Articles 72a – 72f of the Act).

Recommended actions.

In light of the amendments to the Commercial Companies Code, entities subject to the new regulations should take steps to ensure their operations are in compliance with the law. It is recommended that:

1)      Self-identification in order to determine whether a given entity qualifies as a key or important entity within the meaning of the Act.

2)      Implementation or update of an information security management system.

3)      Development of procedures for identifying and reporting incidents, taking into account the new procedure.

4)      Ensuring the involvement of management staff, e.g. the manager’s implementation of the obligations under Article 8d or 8e.

5)      Preparing the organization for potential supervisory activities, e.g. inspections.

• Action:

ex officio entries carried out by the Minister of Digital Affairs (current key service operators, trust service providers, telecommunications companies and public entities)

• Deadline:

April 13 – May 6, 2026

• Action:

self-registration in the list of key and important entities

• Deadline:

May 7 – October 3, 2026

• Action:

launching the possibility of using the S46 system for new entities

• Deadline:

June 12, 2026

• Action:

end of the deadline for starting to use the S46 system and implementing obligations (end of the adjustment period)

• Deadline:

April 3, 2027

• Action:

the first ISMS audit (for key entities that were not key service operators) and the beginning of the application of the provisions on penalties

• Deadline:

April 3, 2028

Artykuł NIS2 in Poland: Practical Implications of the New Cybersecurity Framework for Businesses pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Just a few years ago, online store owners primarily had to ensure terms and conditions, privacy policies, and efficient order processing. Today, this is clearly not enough. EU regulations such as the Omnibus Directive and the Digital Services Act (DSA), as well as the increasing role of artificial intelligence in assessing store credibility, force businesses to consider their platforms much more broadly. It is no longer just about regulatory compliance, but also about building digital trust, which influences a store’s visibility, legal security, and customer purchasing decisions. Below, we present a practical checklist of the most important actions to implement to reduce the risk of sanctions and increase the credibility of an online store.

Practical guidelines for online store owners

I.            Avoiding UOKiK fines and compliance with the Omnibus Directive

a. Implement transactional verification: You should configure your feedback system so that each review you post is technically linked to the unique order number and email address of the customer who actually completed the purchase.

b. Updating the content of the regulations: In the “Rules for publishing opinions” section, the verification procedure should be described in detail, whether all opinions (including critical ones) are published and how the average product rating is calculated.

c. Transparent labeling: Each review should have a clear status indication (e.g., “Purchase confirmed”). If a benefit is provided in exchange for reviews (e.g., a discount code), this information must be clearly and prominently displayed within the review text.

d. Lowest price mechanism: In accordance with the requirements of price transparency, each discount must display the lowest price of the product that was valid in the 30 days prior to the introduction of the discount.

Legal basis: Act of 30 May 2014 on consumer rights ( Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1796, as amended); Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ EU L 328 of 2019, No. 328, p. 7, as amended); Act of 23 August 2007 on counteracting unfair market practices ( i.e. Journal of Laws of 2023, item 845).

II.            Ensuring compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA)

a. Implementing a “report content” mechanism: Every review or user-generated content must have an easily accessible button to report suspected illegality or manipulation of the content.

b. Procedure for justifying decisions: In the event of deletion of an opinion or blocking of a user account, the platform is obliged to send the author a detailed justification indicating a specific violation of the regulations or legal provisions.

c. Internal Complaints Process: Users must be able to appeal moderation decisions for a period of at least 6 months from the date the platform takes action.

d. Designation of a contact point: The entrepreneur must designate an electronic contact point for supervisory authorities and users, enabling efficient communication on matters relating to digital security.

Legal basis: Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L 277, 2022, No. 277, p. 1, as amended), in particular Articles 16, 17 and 20.

III.            Reducing the risk of “algorithmic exclusion”

a. Design Patterns (UX) Audit: Eliminate so-called dark patterns, such as asymmetric selector buttons, hard-to-close pop-ups, or mechanisms that make it difficult to unsubscribe. Supervisory algorithms treat such practices as signals of poor interface quality.

b. Data Certification for AI: Ensure structured review data is provided, allowing shopping assistants and crawlers to properly verify the “digital provenance” of the data.

c. Filtering synthetically generated content: It is worth implementing tools that monitor review language for bot-like patterns (unnatural correctness, lack of detail) to avoid indexing false enthusiasm that results in lower trust rankings.

Legal basis: REGULATION (EU) 2022/2065 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L 277, 2022, p. 1, as amended) – Article 25 (prohibition of deceptive interfaces)

IV.            Proper management of data and opinions (CaaS model)

a. Digital Audit Trail: It is recommended to store logs containing transaction metadata related to opinions for a period enabling verification of data reliability (e.g. 12-24 months).

b. Active mediation systems: Instead of deleting negative feedback, use complaint management systems that document the process of resolving customer disputes. Resolving a problem is treated by ranking systems as evidence of high-quality service.

c.       “Know Your Business Customer” principle: When running a marketplace model, it is essential to verify the identity of sellers before allowing them to offer goods, collecting registration numbers and contact details.

Legal basis: REGULATION (EU) 2022/2065 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L of 2022, No. 277, p. 1, as amended) – Article 30; Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ EU L of 2016, No. 119, p. 1, as amended).

Artykuł Is Your Online Store Ready for the New Era of Control? A Practical Guide to E-Commerce Responsibilities in 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The dynamic development of artificial intelligence-based technologies is revolutionizing not only the commercial sector but also the area of state oversight of the digital market. The implementation of multi-agent systems by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) opens a new era in consumer rights enforcement, enabling the mass and automated identification of unfair market practices. With the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Omnibus Directive in force, traditional control methods are giving way to algorithmic interface analysis aimed at eliminating so-called dark patterns and price manipulation. However, the use of “digital controllers” raises fundamental questions for legal science and business practice about the limits of automated decision-making processes in public administration. Although AI agents significantly improve the effectiveness of detecting violations, their legal status as a source of evidence remains the subject of heated debate. The main thesis is that while AI can be a powerful auxiliary tool for regulatory bodies, the ultimate responsibility for determining the facts and assessing the legitimate interests of a party must rest with humans, which is the foundation of a fair procedure in a state governed by the rule of law.

Dark Patterns: Legal and Ethical Aspects of Prohibiting Manipulation in Digital Interfaces

A key obligation of internet platform providers in light of modern regulations is to design interfaces in a transparent and ethical manner. The prohibition of manipulation, formulated, among others, in the Digital Services Act (Article 25), directly affects the structure of so-called deceptive interfaces (dark patterns). Websites and applications cannot be designed in a way that limits the recipient’s cognitive autonomy, interferes with their ability to rationally assess the situation, or forces them to make a purchasing decision that they would not have made under other circumstances.

One of the most glaring examples of such violations is the asymmetry in the contract conclusion and termination process, particularly evident in subscription models. This mechanism relies on extreme simplification of the purchase path while simultaneously mounting procedural barriers when attempting to cancel the service. Visual techniques are used here, among other things: payment activation buttons are highlighted with bright colors and a central location, while contract termination options are deliberately hidden at the bottom of the page, written in small font or masked with colors that blend with the background. Furthermore, canceling a subscription on online platforms often requires multiple selections or confirmation of the desire to cancel, despite the consumer’s prior explicit choice. Artificial intelligence algorithms, analyzing the page structure and visual hierarchy of elements, can pinpoint these disparities with mathematical precision, creating a list of violations that serves as hard evidence.

In the context of the Omnibus Directive, the obligation to disclose the lowest price 30 days before the discount has become a market standard, but its implementation is open to abuse. The practice of “empty promotions” involves artificially inflating the base price just before a planned discount or providing a false reference amount. In this area, AI agents demonstrate particular effectiveness, acting as real-time monitoring systems; they can archive the price history of each product, creating an independent database. Comparing this information with the entrepreneur’s declaration visible on the website allows for immediate detection of manipulation of the promotional algorithm.

An equally important area of control is the phenomenon of drip pricing , or hiding the real costs of a transaction until the final stage of the shopping cart. Businesses often employ a “decoy” strategy, presenting an attractive unit price, which, at the time of order finalization, is increased by mandatory, previously undisclosed costs, such as service fees, packaging costs, or payment processing fees. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Consumer Rights Act, businesses are obligated to clearly and understandably inform consumers about, among other things, the total price for the proposed service. Automated control systems are capable of conducting a full simulation of the purchasing process, from product selection to the payment gateway. Any discrepancy between the price presented in the product list and the amount required to complete the contract is reported by AI as an attempt to circumvent disclosure obligations and a direct violation of the collective interests of consumers.

According to Article 5 of the Act on Combating Unfair Market Practices, the key criterion for assessing a trader’s behavior is the impact of their actions on the recipient’s decision-making process. A market practice is considered misleading if “this action in any way causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that they would not otherwise have made”. The legislator specifies that both “spreading false information” and “spreading true information in a manner that is likely to be misleading” can constitute an infringement. In the digital environment, these manipulations most often focus on the “existence of a product, its type, or availability.” A common method of exerting unjustified pressure on consumers is the use of social proof mechanisms and an artificial sense of scarcity. This manifests itself in messages such as: “this product is now being viewed by x people,” “x items have already been purchased today,” or displaying timers indicating that “only 30 minutes left until the end of the promotion.” Particularly problematic from the perspective of trade ethics is the use of so-called false advertising. Timers – clocks counting down to the finale of a supposedly unique price opportunity. In reality, these are fake mechanisms, as after the specified deadline, the offer remains active and the product price remains unchanged or becomes even more favorable. This type of activity, a classic example of dark patterns, is designed to induce fear of missing out (FOMO) in customers and induce them to rush into a transaction. Using AI agents allows regulators to serially monitor such counters and prove their cyclical recurrence, providing direct evidence of deceptive practices.

The algorithm as a controller

With millions of transactions taking place across the country in just a few minutes or hours, standard order verification procedures prove insufficient to effectively fulfill the statutory responsibilities of supervisory authorities. Technological advancements in the form of AI algorithms come to the rescue. These algorithms can automatically monitor numerous commercial transactions simultaneously, generating preliminary opinions that are ultimately subject to human review. Such systems not only save significant processing time but, above all, enable oversight of a much broader range of businesses and their online platforms. The AI multi-agents used in this process are virtual “consumer robots” capable of mass-auditing e-commerce websites, simulating the natural behavior of online users to detect irregularities that a human controller would be unable to detect on such a large scale.

To conduct reliable and effective inspections, Polish law already offers supervisory authorities a toolkit in the form of the “mystery shopper” institution. Traditionally, this involves a person unrelated to the inspected company or the inspecting authority making a purchase and then completing a survey regarding specific activities they observe during standard shopping. The implementation of AI technology by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) aims to entrust AI multi-agents with the role of such digital “mystery shoppers.” Their task is to interact with the website interface, add a product to the cart, and complete the entire purchasing process without disclosing that this activity is being performed by an algorithm or that it is part of an official inspection procedure. This approach allows for direct verification of whether the entrepreneur is not using prohibited manipulative practices, known as dark patterns. However, it should be emphasized that the activity of AI multi-agents is strictly regulated by legal procedures and cannot be arbitrary. The algorithm operates under the strict supervision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, who, pursuant to Article 105ia of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection, must always obtain prior consent from the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection. This mechanism serves as a key safeguard against abuse of power. Furthermore, after completing the inspection, the office is obligated to immediately provide the entrepreneur with an official ID and authorization for the inspection. In the age of digital administration, this obligation can be fulfilled electronically immediately after the AI multi-agents withdraw from the sales platform.

The key legal framework for the operation of algorithms commissioned by the regulator is provided by the EU AI Act. According to its provisions, AI systems used by public authorities for control and supervisory purposes should be considered high-risk AI systems. This entails a strict requirement to design them with appropriate transparency, which allows both the controlling and the controlled entities to properly interpret the system’s results and use them fairly. In practice, this means that algorithms must be built in an “explainable” model. A business subject to allegations based on an algorithmic audit has the statutory right to request full insight into the operation of AI tools. This transparency is essential for the controlled entity to understand the basis and criteria on which the authority deemed its online platform unfair or infringing on the collective interests of consumers (Article 24). This balance between the effectiveness of digital supervision and the right to defense is the foundation of a modern rule of law in the age of algorithms.

The opinion of AI multi-agents as evidence in the case

After completing the inspection activities on the entrepreneur’s online platform, the AI algorithm’s role evolves towards an analytical function, consisting of preparing an opinion indicating detected violations. In the context of potential proceedings against an entity employing unfair market practices, the admissibility of using such an analysis as valid evidence becomes a key issue. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Procedure), which establishes the principle of objective truth, a public administration body is obligated to take all steps necessary to thoroughly clarify the factual circumstances. This obligation is consistent with Article 75 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, which introduces an open catalog of evidence, allowing as evidence anything that may contribute to the clarification of the case, provided it is not contrary to the law.

Under these regulations, the results of AI multi-agent work – taking the form of reports, opinions, or analyses generated after conducting an audit with court approval – fully fall within the statutory definition of evidence. However, it should be clearly stated that an AI opinion cannot be equated with an expert opinion within the meaning of Article 84 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. This stems from the fact that an algorithm does not possess the status of a natural person equipped with specialized knowledge, which is a statutory requirement for appointing an expert. Instead, documentation generated by an AI agent should be classified as a private document or so-called “unnamed evidence.”

Practical justification for this position can be found in the case law concerning digital evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of September 19, 2016, I ACa 364/15, LEX no. 2147337 aptly describes this issue, pointing out that evidence in a case may include official and private documents, but also means other than those listed in Articles 305-308 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Electronic evidence, currently increasingly used in civil proceedings, is not explicitly listed in the catalog of means of evidence. However, the Code of Civil Procedure does not contain a closed list of evidence sources; anything relevant to the case may constitute evidence. Although the above ruling was issued in the context of civil procedure, due to the identical approach to the openness of the evidence system, it remains fully applicable to administrative proceedings conducted by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.

The key element of algorithmic evidence remains the human factor, which serves as a primary safeguard over the autonomous operation of technology. It’s important to note that AI multi-agents, despite their high sophistication, operate based on statistical probability models, which carries the risk of misinterpreting dynamic website elements. For example, the system may incorrectly classify a standard technical error as intentional dark web activity. patterns or misinterpret the interface’s intentions in a specific cultural or linguistic context. Therefore, opinions generated by AI agents cannot constitute a standalone and final basis for a decision, but should be subjected to thorough, critical review by an official. Only such a comparison of the “raw” algorithmic result with human knowledge and experience allows for avoiding errors that could lead to unjustified penalties. This approach is directly supported by Article 80 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, according to which a public administration body assesses whether a given circumstance has been proven based on the entirety of the evidence. In this process, the “AI opinion” is only one of many components that must be weighed against other evidence and evaluated through the prism of principles of logic and life experience, ultimately guaranteeing the implementation of the principle of objective truth and protecting the entrepreneur from the automaticity of decisions made by the algorithm.

Summary

Multi-agent system implemented by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection for automatic control of the e-commerce sector poses a significant challenge for entrepreneurs, forcing strict compliance with regulations regarding dark patterns, price transparency (Omnibus Directive, Art. 6a) and information obligations (Consumer Rights Act, Art. 12). These tools are used to mass detect manipulative practices such as drip pricing, fake timers or making it difficult to unsubscribe. Although AI agents perform a function similar to “mystery shoppers,” their activity must meet the rigors of Article 105ia of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection, including the requirement to obtain court consent for a controlled purchase. What is crucial from a procedural perspective is that the findings made by the algorithm do not have the status of an expert opinion within the meaning of Article 84 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (lack of the status of a natural person with specialist knowledge), but constitute only a private document or “other evidence” subject to the authority’s free assessment (Article 80 of the Code of Administrative Procedure).

Consequently, the official is required to subject AI reports to thorough human review to eliminate the risk of misclassification resulting from so-called “AI hallucinations” or technical errors in the interpretation of the website’s code. The entrepreneur has full rights of defense based on the principle of active participation of the party (Article 10 of the Code of Administrative Procedure) and the principle of objective truth (Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure), which means the right to question the bot’s logic and to access the instructions and parameters of the AI system, in accordance with the “explainability” requirement enshrined in the AI Act (Article 13). Any decision based solely on the automated generation of conclusions, without providing the party with an opportunity to comment on the evidence (Article 81 of the Code of Administrative Procedure), constitutes a gross violation of administrative procedure and may constitute an effective basis for challenging the authority’s decision.

Sources:

Regulation 2022/2065 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L 277, 2022, No. 277, p. 1, as amended).

Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ L 328, 2019, p. 7, as amended).

Act of 30 May 2014 on consumer rights (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1796, as amended).

Act of 23 August 2007 on counteracting unfair market practices (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 845).

Act of 16 February 2007 on competition and consumer protection (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1714).

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 1689, 2024).

Act of 14 June 1960, the Code of Administrative Procedure (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1691).

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 19 September 2016, I ACa 364/15, LEX no. 2147337.

Artykuł Multi-agent system in the service of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection – a new era of e-commerce control and the limits pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Publication date: July 07, 2026

– the first edition of a new nationwide event dedicated to the defence, security and resilience of the state

On June 19-20, 2026, representatives of our law firm will participate in the Warsaw Defense Trade Fair (WTO 2026), which will be held at the EXPO XXI Exhibition Center in Warsaw. This is the first edition of a completely new trade fair and conference event, created in response to the growing importance of the defense sector, national security, and technologies supporting Poland’s institutional, economic, and social resilience. The fair is held under the honorary patronage of the Ministry of Interior and Administration and the Minister of National Defense. The event is informally referred to as a “mini-MSPO in Warsaw” – a capital city-based, intimate alternative to the September International Defense Industry Fair in Kielce, open not only to professionals but also – on the second day – to the general public.

The goal of the Warsaw Defense Fair is to integrate key groups responsible for national security and to create a space for dialogue, collaboration, and exchange of experiences between public administration, the military, uniformed services, the defense industry, the technology sector, the investor community, and military universities. The event combines exhibition, conference, and networking elements , creating a platform for showcasing modern technologies, exchanging expert knowledge, and building business relationships in one of the fastest-growing sectors of the Polish economy.

The trade fair program is divided into two complementary days, representing one of the most distinctive solutions adopted by the organizers. Friday, June 19, 2026, will be an industry day (B2B/B2G), intended exclusively for companies, institutions, and business partners. Industry registration is required. This day will be a platform for meetings and discussions between individuals and entities interested in establishing cooperation in the defense and security sector, including representatives of public administration and local governments, soldiers and uniformed services, representatives of companies in the defense and technology sectors, investors, industry advisors, and representatives of military universities. The program focuses on key challenges facing the defense and national security sectors, including conferences, panel discussions, and business and institutional meetings concerning the development of the Polish defense industry, modernization of the Armed Forces, public procurement in the defense sector, and cross-sectoral cooperation.

Saturday, June 20, 2026, will be an open day (B2B/B2G/B2C), also open to the public interested in security, defense, and shooting. The second day significantly complements the industry portion and expands the event to include the general public, as well as educational and outreach communities. It will feature demonstrations of equipment and technologies in near-operational settings, demonstration zones by exhibitors and manufacturers, presentations of solutions in cybersecurity, drones, communications, and critical infrastructure protection, as well as numerous lectures for enthusiasts. Topics covered include firearms licenses – myths and legal realities, training and shooting sports, hearing and eye protection, safety and ergonomics at the shooting range, and civic preparedness for crisis situations.

Exhibitors and thematic scope

Over 100 exhibitors will be present at the fair, representing a full cross-section of entities active in the Polish defense and security sector. Exhibitors include military units such as the 1st Warsaw Armored Brigade and the 18th Capital Territorial Defense Brigade, international technology companies, including 3M Poland, which presents personal protection solutions for the defense sector, and Artec 3D with 3D scanners used in military applications. The shooting and equipment segment will be strongly represented, with companies such as House of Guns , Hubertus Pro Hunting , Kaliber, 4HUNTING, Kolba, 4SHOOTER, Son of Gun , Jammas , and Wolfer. Group and Works11. The event is also partnered by the Legia Warsaw Central Military Sports Club – Shooting Section.

The exhibition covers cutting-edge weapons, equipment, facilities and technologies used in the defense and security sector: unmanned systems and drones, cybersecurity solutions, tactical communications and communication technologies, critical infrastructure protection, personal protective equipment, 3D scanning and simulation technologies, individual soldier equipment, as well as solutions in the area of civil defense and population protection.

Three conference stages and a substantive agenda

The WTO 2026 program will unfold simultaneously across three conference stages. The industry day will be dedicated to the most important strategic challenges facing the defense sector – the technical modernization of the Polish Armed Forces, the development of the domestic arms industry, cooperation with foreign partners, public procurement in the defense sector, new dual-use technologies , and the role of the private sector in building national resilience. The second day, open to the public, will feature lectures and discussions covering a much broader range of topics – from legal issues concerning access to weapons and individual security, through shooting sports and defense training, to preparing society for crisis situations and disseminating knowledge about modern defense technologies.

The significance of the event from a legal perspective

The establishment of the Warsaw Defense Fair is part of the broader context of the dynamic development of the Polish defense sector, which in recent years has become one of the most important areas of public and private investment, generating significant demand for legal services. From the firm’s perspective, issues related to public procurement in the defense sector, regulations regarding trade in arms and dual-use technologies, export controls, protection of classified information, cybersecurity in the context of the NIS2 directive, intellectual property rights in defense technology projects, and financing of projects from European funds (including the European Defense Fund and ASAP), as well as the development of regulations regarding artificial intelligence in military applications in light of the European AI Act . The participation of representatives of the KG LEGAL KIEŁTYKA GŁADKOWSKI law firm in this event is a natural element of tracking the development of one of the fastest-growing sectors of the Polish economy and building competences in the area of law related to new defense technologies.

The Warsaw Defense Fair 2026 demonstrates that security and defense are no longer the exclusive domain of the military and state administration. They have become an area of broad cross-sectoral cooperation, with technology companies, investors, academia, non-governmental organizations, and informed citizens playing key roles. The development of this sector today requires not only advanced technological competencies but also an appropriate legal, regulatory, and institutional environment.

Link to the event: https://wto26.exposupport.pl/program

#WarsawDefenceExpo #WTO2026 #WarszawskieTargiObronne #DefenceIndustry #DefenseIndustry #DefenceExpo #DefenseExpo #PolishDefenceIndustry #PolishArmedForces #NationalSecurity #StateResilience #CivilDefence #HomelandSecurity #DefenceTechnology #DefenseTech #MilitaryTechnology #MilitaryInnovation #DualUseTechnology #DefenceProcurement #PublicProcurement #ArmsTrade #ExportControl #ClassifiedInformation #CyberSecurity #NIS2 #CriticalInfrastructure #InfrastructureProtection #UnmannedSystems #Drones #UAV #TacticalCommunications #PersonalProtectiveEquipment #3DScanning #AIinDefence #AIAct #ArtificialIntelligence #EuropeanDefenceFund #EDF #ASAP #IntellectualProperty #DefenceIP #TerritorialDefence #WOT #ArmedForces #MilitaryModernization #SportShooting #FirearmsLaw #WeaponsPermits #ShootingSports #RangeSafety #CrisisPreparedness #EmergencyPreparedness #Resilience #B2B #B2G #EXPOXXI #Warsaw #Warszawa #Poland #MONRP #MSWiA #MiniMSPO #DefenceConference #SecurityConference #LegalTech #LawFirm #KGLegal #KieltykaGladkowski

Artykuł Representatives of our law firm KG LEGAL KIEŁTYKA GŁADKOWSKI will take part in the Warsaw Defence Fair 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The CE marking was introduced as part of the harmonization of product marking processes within the EU. It is intended to replace all existing conformity markings. The marking itself indicates that the product meets the requirements of the applicable regulations. It is affixed to products intended for introduction into the EEA and Turkish markets, regardless of where they were manufactured.

Main regulations

The main acts that regulate the CE marking of products and the conformity testing that must accompany this process are: Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (consolidated text: OJ L 218, 2008, p. 30, as amended) as well as Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC (consolidated text: OJ L 218, 2008, p. 82).

CE marking

Although the mark is generally believed to be an abbreviation of the French expression “Conformité Européenne”, no EU legal act provides such an expansion of this abbreviation.

The appearance and method of affixing the CE marking are specified in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 and Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008, stating that it consists of the initials “CE” presented in the form specified in the regulation. Unless other regulations specify a different height, it shall be at least 5 mm. In all cases, the proportions of the mark must be maintained. It must be affixed so that it is visible, legible, and indelible from the product. The CE marking is followed by the identification number of the notified body, if it was involved in the production control phase. If the CE marking cannot be affixed to the product, it should be affixed to the packaging or accompanying documentation.

Declaration of Conformity

Union harmonisation legislation requires the manufacturer to draw up and sign an EU declaration of conformity before placing the product on the market.

The manufacturer or its authorized representative established within the EU is required to draw up and sign an EU declaration of conformity as part of the conformity assessment procedure provided for in Union harmonisation legislation. The EU declaration of conformity is a document stating that the product complies with all relevant requirements of the applicable legislation.

By drawing up and signing the EU declaration of conformity, the manufacturer takes responsibility for the product’s compliance with the regulations.

The EU declaration of conformity must be continuously updated and kept for ten years from the date the product is placed on the market, unless a different period is specified by law.

According to the model declaration in Decision No 768/2008/EC of 9 July 2008, the declaration should include:

1. unique product identifier,

2. name and address of the manufacturer or authorized representative issuing the declaration,

3. a statement that the declaration is issued under the sole responsibility of the manufacturer,

4. Subject of the declaration (product identifier enabling the reconstruction of its history. Where appropriate, it may include a photo),

5. all relevant provisions of Union harmonisation legislation that the product must comply with, referenced standards or other technical specifications (such as national standards and technical specifications) in a precise, complete and clearly defined manner,

6. Where applicable, name and number of the notified body that issued the certificate,

7. Additional information,

8. Date of issue of the declaration, signature and position or equivalent designation of the authorized person,

Modules

The mark itself is intended to indicate that the product meets the requirements specified in the law. The product is marked with it by the manufacturer, either independently or with the participation of a national authority (conformity assessment body, notified body). For this purpose, the manufacturer assesses conformity using modules (described in the Commission Notice Blue Guide – Implementation of EU product regulations 2022 (i.e. OJ EU C. of 2022 No. 247, p. 1) and Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008). The modules refer to both the design and production phases. Conformity assessments can be performed using one or two modules. Assessment modules can refer to one of the phases (e.g. only to the production phase), or to both. If a module refers to only one phase, the assessment consists of two modules, while if it refers to both phases, the assessment consists of one.

There are eight modules in total, but with the addition of variants, their number increases to 16 (A, A1, A2, B, C, C1, C2, D, D1, E, E1, F, F1, G, H, H1). Each subsequent module contains further requirements, along with increasing risks posed by the product. In the “least demanding” module, A, the manufacturer only prepares technical documentation and takes all necessary measures to ensure the production process ensures compliance of manufactured products with the technical documentation, and then affixes the marking to the product. In the highest module, H1, the manufacturer must have an approved quality assurance system (approved by a notified body) for design, production, and inspection and testing of finished products. It is also subject to supervision by a notified body. The notified body may also pay unannounced visits to the manufacturer, during which it may conduct or commission product tests.

Entities involved in conformity assessment

At the outset, it is worth noting that regardless of whether a notified body is involved in the conformity assessment procedure or not, the conformity assessment is the manufacturer’s responsibility, and the declaration of conformity is made under his sole responsibility.

There are three possibilities for the involvement of other entities in the conformity assessment procedure:

– No involvement of external entities. In such a case (and this usually applies to products that the legislator has deemed not to pose such a risk that the manufacturer cannot be entrusted with the independent conformity assessment), the manufacturer prepares the declaration itself (along with the appropriate tests and technical documentation), and conducts the tests, inspections, and guarantees compliance during production.

– Conformity assessment is carried out using an accredited in-house body, i.e., a part of the manufacturer. However, this body cannot perform any tasks other than conformity assessment. It must be independent of commercial, design, and manufacturing entities and must possess the same level of technical competence and impartiality as external assessment bodies. They may conduct assessments within the scope of modules A1, A2, C1, or C2.

– Conducting the assessment with the involvement of an external entity. If the legislator deems such intervention necessary, an external conformity assessment body will participate in the conformity assessment. This body must be impartial and fully independent of the organization or the product it assesses. It must not engage in any activities that might compromise its independence, and it must not have user or other interests in the product being assessed.

Member States are responsible for designating conformity assessment bodies. They must designate bodies (within their jurisdiction) that have the appropriate competence to assess product conformity.

Even though in-house bodies cannot be notified (i.e. they cannot be external conformity assessment bodies), they must demonstrate at least the same level of technical competence as external bodies through accreditation.

Notified bodies

Conformity assessment bodies (referred to as notified bodies in EU legislation) are entities designated by Member States. Appointed notified bodies must then be notified to the European Commission.

They play roles in the conformity assessment process, responsible for activities such as calibration, testing, certification, and inspection. To qualify as a notified body, a body must be a legal entity established in a Member State, but it may operate or employ personnel outside a Member State or even outside the EU.

The bodies must be accredited, which means that the relevant national accreditation body must confirm that the conformity assessment body meets the requirements set by the harmonised standards and any additional requirements for carrying out specific conformity assessment tasks.

Member States may designate a maximum of one national accreditation body. However, they may choose not to designate such a body and instead have accreditation performed in their territory by an accreditation body from another Member State. In both cases (designation or non-designation), Member States are required to notify the European Commission.

Notified bodies are subject to oversight by national notifying authorities and must keep them informed about their activities (including, for example, availability of resources, performance of conformity assessments, subcontracting of work, and conflicts of interest). They must provide, directly or through another body (e.g., a national accreditation body), all information concerning the proper implementation of the conditions under which they were notified, upon request, both to their notifying authorities and to the Commission.

The notifying authority is responsible for the activities of notified bodies. It must remain capable of ensuring monitoring. If such monitoring is not possible, the notifying authority must withdraw or limit the scope of the notification to the extent necessary.

It’s also worth mentioning that the independence requirement (which also means that notified bodies “are and must remain” third parties independent of their clients) does not mean that only state bodies can become notified bodies. On the contrary, both state and private entities can apply for this status, provided their independence, impartiality, and reliability are guaranteed, and they constitute independent legal entities with appropriate rights and obligations.

Product labeling requirement

The CE marking is not required for every product, only for those for which legislation requires it. Currently, these include toys, electrical products, machinery, personal protective equipment, and cranes. It is prohibited to affix the CE marking to products that are not covered by the CE marking regulations.

Changes in the law

There have been no significant recent changes to the legislation governing the CE marking. However, sector-specific regulations necessarily influence the use of the mark. Such as Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements and amending Regulations (EU) No 168/2013 and (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 (Cyber Resilience Act) (OJ EU L 2024, item 2847, as amended) or Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904 and repealing Directive 94/62/EC (OJ EU L 2025, item item 40) and acts requiring CE marking of products such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 1689, 2024).

In its Annex I, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 lists Union harmonisation legislation.

In summary, the purpose of the CE marking is to signal that a product meets the requirements of the applicable regulations. It is affixed to the product by the manufacturer, either independently or with the involvement of accredited internal bodies or a notified body, following the conformity assessment module(s) appropriate for the level of risk posed by the product, and under their own responsibility.

CE Marking – what really stands behind those two letters?

CE marking is more than just a symbol on a product – it’s a legal declaration that the product complies with all applicable EU requirements and can be placed on the EEA and Turkish markets, regardless of where it was manufactured.

It is the result of a structured conformity assessment process defined in EU harmonisation legislation (including Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and Decision No 768/2008/EC). Depending on the level of risk, this process may involve the manufacturer alone, internal accredited bodies, or independent notified bodies.

By affixing the CE mark, the manufacturer takes full responsibility for product compliance. In parallel, an EU Declaration of Conformity must be issued, maintained, and kept up to date, confirming that all relevant legal requirements have been met.

The system is built on risk-based modules – from basic self-assessment to highly controlled certification schemes involving external oversight. This ensures proportional control while maintaining product safety and market access across the EU.

In short: CE marking is not a quality label – it is a regulatory passport for products entering the European market.

#CEMarking #EUCompliance #RegulatoryAffairs #ProductCompliance #ConformityAssessment #CECertification #EURegulation #MarketAccess #ProductSafety #NotifiedBody #TechnicalDocumentation #QualityAssurance #ManufacturingCompliance #IndustrialCompliance #LegalMetrology #EUlaw #ProductTesting #DeclarationOfConformity #RiskAssessment #HarmonisedStandards #BlueGuide #RegulatoryCompliance #EngineeringCompliance #SupplyChainCompliance #ProductRegulations #ComplianceManagement

Artykuł CE marking pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Resignation from the management board of a limited liability company is permissible at any time, regardless of the term of office. Therefore, a sole management board member is not obligated to serve until the end of their term and may terminate their position earlier either through their own resignation or through dismissal by the relevant body. Each of these options leads to the expiry of their mandate, but they differ significantly in terms of procedure and practical consequences.

Legal nature of resignation

Resignation from the management board constitutes a unilateral legal act. Its effectiveness does not depend on the consent or any action of the shareholder or the company. This is based on Article 202 § 5 of the Commercial Companies Code, which refers to the provisions of the Civil Code on termination of an assignment. The mandate holder may terminate the assignment at any time, and the declaration becomes effective upon the addressee having had the opportunity to become familiar with its content, as stipulated in Article 61 § 1 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the mandate expires by operation of law at the time specified by law, not only upon entry in the National Court Register. An entry in the register is solely declaratory in nature, confirming the existing legal status, but does not create it. Its absence does not affect the effectiveness of the resignation, although it may cause practical difficulties in relations with contractors and institutions.

Special procedure for the resignation of the sole member of the management board of a limited liability company

Article 201 § 2 of the Commercial Companies Code allows for the management board of a limited liability company to consist of one person. This is a dispositive provision, meaning that the company agreement may provide otherwise and, for example, require a larger number of management board members. Therefore, before taking any action, the content of the specific company agreement in this regard should be verified.

If the sole member of the management board resigns, no management board seat would be filled after their departure. The legislature anticipated this situation by introducing a separate procedure in Article 202 § 6 of the Commercial Companies Code. According to this procedure, the resignation is submitted to the shareholders, convening a shareholders’ meeting. The resignation statement should be included in the invitation to the meeting or delivered to the shareholders together with the notice of its convening. The meeting is convened by registered mail, courier, or email (if the shareholder has previously consented in writing), sent at least two weeks before the shareholders’ meeting. The procedure in such a case should be as follows:

1/ The member of the management board shall submit a declaration of resignation to the shareholders, and not to another body of the company, e.g. the supervisory board (if established in the company’s articles of association) or to a commercial proxy, if one has been appointed in the company.

2/ At the same time, it convenes a shareholders’ meeting two weeks before the planned meeting, attaching the text of the resignation declaration to the invitation.

3/ The resignation becomes effective on the day following the date for which the meeting was convened. This occurs regardless of whether the meeting actually takes place or whether the shareholders adopt any resolutions.

4/ The effectiveness of the resignation does not depend on the shareholder’s participation in the meeting, the adoption of the resolution or the consent to the resignation.

5/ A subsequent entry in the National Court Register is of a declaratory nature and confirms the existing situation, but does not condition the effectiveness of the resignation.

Who is the proper addressee of the declaration of resignation?

A resignation declaration must be submitted to the shareholders, as they are the entities authorized to appoint and dismiss management board members. It cannot be submitted to the company as a whole, to the sole proxy (if appointed), as this is not the entity authorized to receive such declarations on behalf of the shareholder or the shareholders’ meeting. Ineffective submission of the declaration, for example, to the wrong addressee, has no legal consequences. In such a case, the management board member’s mandate does not expire, and the person formally remains on the management board.

The company with one shareholder

In the case of a single-member company, i.e., one in which all shares are held by a single shareholder, convening a shareholders’ meeting is formal. A physical meeting is not required. It is sufficient for the sole shareholder to receive notice of the meeting along with the content of the resignation declaration, as, pursuant to Article 156 of the Commercial Companies Code, in a single-member company, the powers of the shareholders’ meeting are exercised independently by the sole shareholder. Therefore, there is no need to organize a formal meeting, as delivering the declaration in a manner that allows for review of its content is sufficient. However, for evidentiary purposes, it is recommended to document this action in writing. Proper delivery of the declaration to the shareholder is crucial. In practice, it is recommended to deliver it in a manner that allows for proof of this fact, e.g., by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, courier, or electronic means with acknowledgment of receipt. Proper delivery is a necessary condition for assessing the effectiveness of the resignation and its effective date.

The procedure is as follows:

1/ The member of the management board sends a declaration of resignation to the shareholder when convening the shareholders’ meeting;

2/ Because the company has a single shareholder, there is no need to formally convene a shareholders’ meeting. The sole shareholder exercises the powers of the shareholders’ meeting independently.

3/ The resignation becomes effective on the day following the day for which the meeting was called, even though it does not have to be formally held.

4/ A subsequent entry in the National Court Register is of a declaratory nature and confirms the existing situation, but does not condition the effectiveness of the resignation.

Can a company function after the resignation of the sole member of the management board?

The resignation of the sole member of the management board leads to a situation in which no mandate on the management board is filled. This situation is referred to in legal doctrine as a “hull body.” A company without a management board, and therefore a representative body, generally cannot effectively enter into contracts, incur obligations, or sign documents requiring management board representation. However, Polish law permits a company to temporarily operate without a management board, provided that an independent commercial proxy is present. Commercial power of attorney does not automatically expire upon the dismissal or resignation of the management board, as Article 109 § 7 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances in which commercial power of attorney expires, and the absence of a management board is not one of them. This view is also reflected in the case law of the Supreme Court and in rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court, for example, in judgment V CZ 26/16.

An independent commercial proxy may, therefore, temporarily represent the company and manage its day-to-day affairs. However, this situation should be purely temporary. A commercial proxy acts within a limited scope; for example, they cannot sign the company’s financial statements, which can result in serious consequences for failing to submit financial statements for the financial year, such as dissolution of the company without liquidation proceedings if the financial statements are not submitted for two consecutive years. They also cannot grant a special power of attorney for actions that require it (sale or encumbrance of real estate, sale of an enterprise), as these actions are reserved by law exclusively for the management board. Such company representation may also pose a risk of suspension of proceedings, as common courts have varying views on this issue, with some courts suspending proceedings ex officio under Article 174 § 1 item 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, considering the lack of a management board to be a deficiency that prevents the company from operating, as evidenced by opposing rulings by the District Court in Bydgoszcz, case file VIII Gz 218/19, and the Court of Appeal in Poznań, case file III AUz207/22. Moreover, a long-term lack of management may negatively impact the company’s credibility in the eyes of business partners, who may refuse to enter into contracts with a company represented solely by an independent proxy, fearing for the entity’s stability.

Deletion of a management board member by the registry court and vacancy in the management board

The registry court will remove a management board member from the National Court Register (KRS) based on a submitted application, even if the company does not yet have a new management board. As mentioned earlier, an entry in the National Court Register is declaratory in nature, and the removal of a management board member by the registry court is not a necessary condition for the expiry of their mandate due to resignation. In such a situation, the court cannot refuse to remove a management board member unless the company is in arrears with its financial statements. However, pursuant to Article 24, Section 1a, if the court finds that there is nobody authorized to represent the company or that the body’s composition is deficient, the court may set a deadline and summon the shareholders to appoint or elect this body, subject to a fine. This initiates enforcement proceedings, in which the court may impose a fine of up to PLN 10,000 on the company’s shareholders, which may be imposed multiple times up to a total of PLN 1 million. If new management board members are elected, any unpaid fines will be waived. The court may also, as a last resort, waive or discontinue the compulsory decision and initiate proceedings to dissolve the company without liquidation proceedings, provided that the company has no transferable assets or does not conduct actual business.

Cancellation as an alternative to resignation

Besides resignation, another way for a management board member to terminate their position is through dismissal by an authorized body. In a limited liability company, this is generally the shareholders’ meeting, although this authority may be delegated to another body in the company agreement. In a company with a single shareholder, dismissal occurs by a shareholder resolution without convening a formal meeting. This immediately terminates the management board member’s mandate.

Sources:

P. Pinior, Resignation of a member of a corporate body, ABC.

A. Krokowski, K. Wielgus, Resignation from the mandate by a member of the management board of a limited liability company after the amendment of November 9, 2018, Rejent 2020, No. 5, pp. 65-100.

D. Marciniak, Resignation of the sole member of the management board of a capital company, PPH 2019, no. 12, pp. 52-58.

M. Dumkiewicz [in:] Commercial Companies Code . Updated commentary, Gdańsk 2026.

Resignation of the sole member of the management board in a Polish limited liability company (sp. z o.o.) is possible at any time, but the procedure is more formalized than in the case of an ordinary board member.

Under Article 202 § 6 of the Commercial Companies Code, the last remaining board member must submit the resignation to the shareholders while simultaneously convening a shareholders’ meeting. The resignation becomes effective on the day following the date for which the meeting was convened — regardless of whether the meeting actually takes place.

Importantly:
• resignation is a unilateral legal act,
• KRS entry is only declaratory,
• incorrect delivery of the resignation may render it ineffective,
• a company may temporarily function without a management board if a commercial proxy (prokurent) has been appointed, although this creates significant practical and legal risks.

The issue remains highly relevant in practice, especially in single-shareholder companies and entities facing governance disputes.

#CorporateLaw #Poland #CompanyLaw #ManagementBoard #Resignation #SpZoo #CommercialLaw #KRS #Governance #PolishLaw

Artykuł Resignation of the sole member of the management board of a limited liability company in Poland pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Labor law, as it regulates one of the key aspects of life, which is performing work in order to obtain funds ensuring a decent living, is one of the most important branches of law. As such, it must be constantly amended to adapt to the dynamically changing reality of life.

Information obligations

An important aspect of entering into an employment relationship is the level of knowledge the applicant has about the future job and its conditions. This allows for a conscious entry into a legal relationship with the employer. New regulations, introduced under the Act of 4 June 2025 amending the Labor Code (Journal of Laws, item 807), come into effect on Christmas Eve. They will require employers to provide information on all remuneration components, regardless of their name and nature, as well as other work-related benefits granted to employees in cash or otherwise. The initial amount or range of remuneration will also be required. All amounts must be based on objective, neutral criteria, particularly with respect to gender. Another mandatory information that employees will be required to receive is information on the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement or remuneration regulations, if such optional documents have been adopted at the workplace.

The information outlined above will need to be included in the job advertisement. However, failure to do so will not, as yet, entail any consequences. If this information was missing from the advertisement, the employer will be obligated to inform the candidate of its content before the interview. If it is not provided even then, the employee will ultimately be required to know it before signing the contract.

As for job advertisements themselves, they will be required to be gender-neutral. As for the recruitment process, the law will mandate that it be conducted in a non-discriminatory manner.

In addition to this information, the candidate will also be granted the right not to disclose their salary for their current position and all previous positions. This right is intended to protect against potential manipulation and pressure regarding remuneration, as this is a key issue.

Counting towards the period of employment

Another change, introduced by the Act of 26 September 2025 amending the Labor Code and certain other acts (Journal of Laws, item 1423), will concern the calculation of employment period. This period is important because of the benefits granted after achieving a certain length of service. These include, for example, increased leave entitlement.

According to the new regulations, the period of service in uniformed services and special services, including the military, currently included in these regulations, will be included in the employment period. Officers of the Marshal’s Guard and the Customs and Tax Service will be added to the list. This is undoubtedly a nod to officers who, after a period of service to ensure the proper functioning of the Polish government, leave for civilian life and have previously experienced worse treatment than their colleagues in other services.

The new regulations also include non-agricultural activities as employment, meaning, to simplify matters, such as running a business or practicing a freelance profession, and collaboration therein, as well as the performance of a mandate contract or other service contract if the provisions on mandate apply, i.e., so-called innominate contracts. The period of performance of an agency contract will also be considered a period of employment, as well as collaboration in the performance of this contract, mandate contracts, and the aforementioned other service contracts.

The cooperating person referred to in this text is considered to be the spouse, one’s own children, children of the other spouse and adopted children, parents, stepmother and stepfather, and adoptive parents if they live with them in a common household and cooperate in conducting the specified activity.

Another group whose activities are counted towards the employment period is membership in agricultural production cooperatives and agricultural circles. I believe this is intended to provide these individuals with some security for the future, particularly the opportunity to change jobs or retrain. For the above-mentioned periods to count towards employment, these individuals must be covered by social security (pension and disability insurance) during their periods, pursuant to separate regulations.

The new regulations will also introduce significant benefits for entrepreneurs who use the so-called “start-up relief” by counting the period of use of this entitlement towards their employment period. Their collaborators will have this period counted towards their employment period if they have opted to pay pension and disability insurance contributions, which is not mandatory for spouses.

The period of employment will also include the period during which the person suspended their business activity to provide personal care for the child. The same applies to a collaborator who suspended their professional activity to provide care for the child. This is a significant relief for parents.

A major facilitation, also important in the context of the EU principle of free movement of workers, will be the inclusion of the time spent working on a basis other than an employment contract towards the period of employment.

The period of employment required from candidates for specific positions in recruitment for vacant positions initiated and not completed before the date of entry into force of this Act by an employer that is not a public finance sector entity is not included in the calculation of the period of employment required from candidates for specific positions in recruitment for vacant positions initiated and not completed before the date of entry into force of this Act.

Including the period of employment with a specific employer

The method for calculating employment time with a specific employer will also change. This is important, for example, in determining the notice period for an employment relationship. Periods of non-agricultural business activity, performance of a mandate contract or other service contract are included in the employee’s employment period with a given employer. The provisions regarding mandate contracts, performance of agency contracts, being a collaborator with the aforementioned, being a member of an agricultural production cooperative, being a member of a cooperative of agricultural circles, performing activities covered by the start-up tax relief, or performing paid work on a basis other than an employment relationship abroad apply accordingly.

If the periods described above overlap, the most favorable, i.e. the longest, one is taken into account.

The periods referred to in non-agricultural activities, cooperation with an entrepreneur covered by the “start-up relief”, suspension of non-agricultural activities and cooperation in conducting such activities for the purpose of childcare are confirmed by a certificate issued by the Social Insurance Institution on the payment of contributions for retirement, disability or accident insurance for a given period on a given basis.

The periods of performance of a contract of mandate or other contract for the provision of services if the provisions on commission apply to it, an agency contract and cooperation in the performance of these contracts are confirmed by a certificate issued by the Social Insurance Institution on the coverage of pension and disability insurance.

The periods of entrepreneurial coverage under the “start-up relief” are confirmed by a certificate issued by the Social Insurance Institution on registration for health insurance

An application for issuing a certificate by the Social Insurance Institution is submitted by the person whose periods of employment are to be included in the employment period, in electronic form using an information profile created in the IT system provided by the Social Insurance Institution.

Artykuł Changes in labor law in Poland in 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Previous amendments to the Tobacco Act

The Polish Act on the Protection of Health against the Consequences of Using Tobacco and Tobacco Products (Journal of Laws 1996, No. 10, item 55, as amended) has undergone several significant changes in recent years.

On March 31, 2025, a law introducing a ban on the sale of heated tobacco products with a characteristic aroma was signed. It is worth mentioning that Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100 of 29 June 2022 amending Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the abolition of certain exemptions for heated tobacco products (OJ L 283, 2022, p. 4), which required EU Member States to introduce such a ban, waited almost 3 years for implementation.

At the time of the act’s signing, work was underway on two further draft bills. The first of these had already been submitted and adopted as the Act of 21 May 2025 amending the Act on the Protection of Health against the Effects of Using Tobacco and Tobacco Products (Journal of Laws of 2025, item 799).

It introduces new definitions, among others:

• electronic cigarettes – as products that can be used for consuming nicotine-free vapor through a mouthpiece, or all components of such a product, including cartridges, tanks, and devices without a cartridge or tank. Electronic cigarettes can be disposable, refillable using a refill container or tank, or rechargeable using disposable cartridges.
• spare containers – as vessels with liquid containing nicotine that can be used to refill an electronic cigarette, or a vessel with liquid not containing nicotine that is intended for use in electronic cigarettes.
• nicotine pouches – as all products for oral use, except those intended for inhalation, containing no tobacco but nicotine, mixed or unmixed with other ingredients, which are portioned into pouches or available in pouches
• smoking electronic cigarettes – as the consumption of nicotine-containing vapour or nicotine-free vapour released by an electronic cigarette.

A ban on the sale of nicotine and nicotine-free electronic cigarettes to children and adolescents under 18 years of age, a ban on the sale of nicotine pouches in vending machines and remotely, and an extension of the advertising and promotion ban to include nicotine-free e-cigarette liquids and the maximum nicotine content in nicotine pouches were also introduced.

In addition to fulfilling the law’s goal of protecting public health and combating addiction, it was intended to close loopholes in the current legal framework, which allowed nicotine-free products (e.g., e-cigarette liquids) to be purchased even by minors. Furthermore, the ban on remote sales of nicotine pouches is intended to limit their availability and, consequently, reduce consumption.

Work is currently underway on the second of the announced bills.

Another amendment to the anti-smoking law

Another bill is currently being planned to introduce a ban on the sale of disposable electronic cigarettes, a ban on the sale of flavored nicotine pouches, greater control over e-cigarettes and new rules for the sale of other nicotine products (e.g. tablets).

The draft bill has been posted on the Government Legislation Center website and is currently in public consultation. Numerous entities have already expressed their views on the bill, including the American Chamber of Commerce in Poland, the Polish Chamber of Commerce, and several private individuals.

The draft amendment to the Anti-Smoking Act, designated as UD213 in the RPL list, provides for a ban on the sale of disposable electronic cigarettes and any products containing nicotine that are not tobacco products or related products – i.e. electronic cigarettes, refill containers, herbal products for smoking and nicotine pouches, with exemptions resulting from pharmaceutical law, the EU regulation on medical devices and EU food law (the latter exclusion is justified by the fact that some plants of the nightshade family (e.g. potato, tomato, pepper, eggplant) contain nicotine or its derivatives. Therefore, it was necessary to exclude from the aforementioned ban the placing on the market of food and foodstuffs in which the nicotine content results from its natural occurrence in the above-mentioned plants.

It also grants the State Sanitary Inspection and the Trade Inspection the authority to verify compliance with technical requirements by electronic cigarettes or refill containers on the market.

The President of the Bureau for Chemical Substances will have the right to request laboratory testing of the composition or emissions of electronic cigarettes or refill containers at the expense of the entity from which the sample was collected. Samples will be collected by the appropriate State Sanitary Inspectorate or, at the request of the President of the Bureau for Chemical Substances, by the manufacturer, importer, or distributor of electronic cigarettes.

The bill also includes a ban on the sale of nicotine pouches with a scent and taste other than tobacco.

As well as the requirement to inform about all ingredients used on the packaging of nicotine pouches and the prohibition of including elements relating to taste, smell or flavourings on them.

Justification

According to the bill’s authors, the bill aims to limit the availability of electronic cigarettes and nicotine pouches. This is intended to reduce their consumption and, consequently, reduce the health and safety risks they pose. This stems from research by the World Health Organization (WHO), which has shown that attractive scents and flavors increase the risk of addiction and attract young people to these products. For many, e-cigarettes are their first exposure to smoking. Even those who smoke e-cigarettes without nicotine are at risk, as they are more likely to later switch to nicotine-based products.

According to data from the Chemicals Bureau, in the period from 2018 to 2023 there was a significant increase in the number of notifications of electronic cigarettes and refill containers to the EU- CEG system from 2,575 in 2018 to as many as 12,772 in 2023. This is an increase of almost 400%.

The law is in line with European trends. Regulations banning disposable cigarettes are being introduced in countries such as France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

The justification also highlighted the existence of a large number of nicotine-containing products on the market. In the bill’s opinion, only those specified in the act (such as cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, and novel products) should be allowed to be placed on the market. Other nicotine-containing products (such as gum, tablets, nasal and oral sprays, and nicotine-containing beverages) should be available only as a means of reducing the physiological and psychological effects of smoking cessation. Their removal from certain markets is also justified by their particularly addictive nature for certain groups, such as children, adolescents, non-smokers, and pregnant and breastfeeding women.

The possibility introduced into the Act for the Trade Inspection and the State Sanitary Inspection to verify the compliance of electronic cigarettes and refill containers with technical requirements is intended to enable these bodies to effectively supervise the composition of the liquid used in these products.

The improvement of supervision is also aimed at granting the President of the Bureau for Chemical Substances the right to commission tests on the composition of liquids for electronic cigarettes and tests on emissions from electronic cigarettes at the expense of the entity providing the samples.

Artykuł Revolutionary changes in tobacco law in Poland pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.