We are pleased to share that Kiełtyka Gładkowski KG Legal has published an expert contribution in Infor, one of Poland’s leading legal and financial publications, devoted to one of the most intriguing regulatory phenomena of the digital economy: loot boxes in video games.

“Loot boxes in video games: between gambling law and consumer protection – a regulatory analysis under Polish and European Union law”

The article goes far beyond the classic “are loot boxes gambling?” debate. By analysing the actual monetisation models used in modern games — particularly microtransactions involving paid acquisition of virtual packages with randomised content — we examine how these mechanisms interact with:

• Polish gambling law and the statutory definition of a game of chance,
• EU consumer protection rules,
• digital services regulation,
• taxation and compliance considerations,
• and emerging concerns related to behavioural design and dark patterns.

One of the key conclusions is that the regulatory importance of loot boxes stems not only from their possible resemblance to gambling mechanisms, but also from the fact that such systems are frequently used by inexperienced consumers, including minors, who may be especially susceptible to manipulative design techniques aimed at increasing engagement and spending.

This is precisely the type of cross-sector regulatory issue in which our team has extensive experience — combining expertise in technology law, highly regulated industries, digital services, compliance, consumer protection and EU regulatory frameworks. We are proud that this experience is reflected in publications appearing in professional journals such as Infor.

Read the article here: Infor – Loot boxes in video games: between gambling law and consumer protection

Artykuł Kiełtyka Gładkowski KG Legal has published an expert contribution in Infor, devoted to loot boxes in video games pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

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.

Jan K., a literature enthusiast with an extraordinary fondness for Polish children’s poetry, finally managed to find a very rare book after a long search – an edition of Julian Tuwim’s “Locomotive,” which he purchased without hesitation from a used bookstore in Maryland, USA, via the online platform AbeBooks. The ease and simplicity of the solution – clicking the “BUY NOW” button, which would soon bring his dream book to him – combined with the bargain price for such a sought-after rarity in the reading community, filled Jan K. with optimism. From that moment on, he simply waited for the Polish Post to knock on his door and deliver him the publication he considered the opportunity of a lifetime. Perhaps it would have been, had Jan K. considered the key issues surrounding importing goods from the USA and the associated costs.

In analyzing the above case, it is crucial to focus on the fundamental concepts related to consumer rights and obligations, which have legal implications – and which can be reduced to the following questions: who does Jan K. become and what does he do in this regard? Given the dynamic growth of global e-commerce between the European Union and the United States, current regulations impose on consumers the role of participants in trade in goods. Under the Union Customs Code, and as confirmed by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), goods mean any product that has a measurable monetary value and, as such, may constitute the subject of a commercial transaction. Therefore, every shipment of goods is subject to customs supervision upon crossing the EU border (Article 134, point 1 of Regulation 952/2013 establishing the Union Customs Code), which also includes customs control (Article 5, point 3 thereof), which refers to specific verification activities performed by customs and tax authorities, such as a search of the goods. This procedure may also involve the risk of a customs debt (Article 5, point 18, ibid.), which would impose on the debtor (Article 5, point 19, ibid.) the obligation to pay the applicable shipping charges. Furthermore, raising the issue of a customs representative – in the form of direct or indirect representation (Article 18, point 1, ibid.), Poczta Polska could potentially become this representative.

Returning to Jan K.’s case, since the book meets the definition of a commodity, the consumer effectively becomes an importer of non-EU goods. The American sales platform was therefore merely a tool enabling the transaction and payment, acting solely as an intermediary between the seller and the buyer. Therefore, the consumer bears all legal responsibility for the authenticity of the documents submitted to Poczta Polska for clearance. Returning to reality, Jan K. should pay attention to important legal aspects when purchasing a unique reading item. It’s worth starting by separating the price of the goods from the shipping costs.

Higher mathematics – calculating customs value

If additional fees related to importing goods from the US to Poland are not included in the price, you should calculate how much you will actually pay for shipping, as the final customs value is made up of several additional fees. Shipping to the EU must first be added to the product price. Customs duty, which varies depending on the product type, is added to this amount (this information is available, for example, in the Polish ISZTAR tariff system or the European TARIC). This amount becomes our VAT base, and the tax is calculated from it. Estimating the total cost of goods, including import, significantly helps in making rational consumer decisions and can save our wallets, sometimes unprepared for additional financial burdens.Play

When tariffs work and when they don’t

Is Jan K. rightly happy about his bargain, or will he first have to contend with the customs system? Until now, a fairly favorable rule existed, according to which shipments up to €150 worth were completely duty-free. However, July 1, 2026, introduces a revolution in this area – the duty exemption is replaced by a flat-rate duty mechanism of €3 for each item, representing a group of goods of the same type, and therefore classified under the same CN code. Although from a customs perspective, the seller would be the customs debtor, the Ministry of Finance emphasizes that how this cost is calculated depends on the business policy of the given platform. Many American platforms add the flat-rate duty to the final price in the basket or in the shipping costs. Additional fees may also be related to the seller’s shipping terms – the seller may declare that they will cover import duties (DDP), or the buyer may be responsible for this, and may be charged a surcharge (DAP). Failure to establish clear shipping terms often results in the buyer being required to pay, a fact that only becomes apparent upon delivery. For this reason, Jan K. should verify the terms he agrees to and what additional costs are included in the price.

The IOSS and OSS procedures may provide some stability in terms of fees. IOSS, which applies to purchases of physical goods, including those from the US, is aimed at non-EU entities that conduct distance selling of imported goods (SOTI) and have established an intermediary that is an active VAT payer in Poland. Currently, this system is used by the vast majority of large platforms in the US, such as Amazon, eBay, Etsy, and Shopify, although additional verification is always helpful. EU and non-EU OSS, on the other hand, are primarily useful for digital services (e-books, games), telecommunications and broadcasting services (internet-based television signal delivery), and other intangible services (e.g., educational services). However, a key aspect of the IOSS system, which we will discuss in more detail in the context of purchases on US platforms, is the value threshold – if the actual value of a physical book is within €150, the platform will collect Polish VAT directly during the payment transaction. However, if this value were higher than EUR 150, IOSS cannot be used and the parcel is subject to the standard customs procedure requiring declaration on the SAD H1 document in the AIS-IMPORT system (i.e. use of the VAT E-Commerce system).

Where is the Polish Post Office in all this?

Article 19 of the Customs Law is a treasure trove of knowledge on the proper conduct of customs procedures – it regulates, among other things, the procedure for presenting goods and filing customs declarations in postal traffic handled by a designated operator. This is where Poczta Polska SA comes in, fulfilling this role, thus acting as a link between the e-consumer and the foreign operator. As mentioned earlier, anyone can appoint a customs representative, acting directly or indirectly. However, in the case of shipments imported from countries such as the USA, there is a certain institutional facility known as tacit (implicit) customs representation.

This mechanism works simply: if the actual value does not exceed €150, the designated operator, i.e., Poczta Polska, will be authorized by law to file a customs declaration on behalf of and for the benefit of the recipient (unless the consumer objects to the notification of arrival). What does this mean in practice? The platform simply adds Polish VAT at the time of purchase. If it uses the IOSS system, the customs declaration in the e-commerce system is submitted using the simplified H7 customs declaration, and the consumer receives the parcel from the Poczta Polska postman at no additional charge upon delivery. If the platform is not equipped with IOSS, VAT must be calculated and collected upon the goods’ arrival in the EU, which means the consumer pays VAT under the general rules upon delivery.

What if the shipment value exceeds €150? The problem of verifying whether the platform uses IOSS resolves itself somewhat. In this case, the platform loses its customs supplier status and assumes only accounting obligations, and therefore, customs and tax duties are settled within the scope of full customs declarations in the national AIS-IMPORT system in the importing country. Poczta Polska does not have an implied power of attorney in this case – the recipient receives a notification and must submit the required documents within 14 days, grant Poczta Polska a customs power of attorney, or otherwise perform customs clearance on their own.

Cooperation with Poczta Polska – proper documents for conscientious service

Courier companies are becoming increasingly popular, ensuring efficient delivery and clear communication. However, when importing goods from a non-EU country, additional fees may be charged. Poczta Polska often proves to be a more cost-effective alternative, but it requires a complete set of documents. This list includes: confirmation of the type and value of the goods; proof of payment: shipping costs, insurance, and any discount information; recipient details and additional documents such as certificates and permits (in transactions between private parties, a “declaration regarding the goods contained in the shipment” in the case of gifts). Importantly, the better the description of the parcel, the less chance of additional complications, such as the need to clarify the contents, prepare corrections, or delays.

Polish Post’s negative dictionary

Since we’ve touched on customs situations that can prove particularly problematic, we should mention Poczta Polska’s blacklist of goods – or rather, its negative vocabulary. This list lists goods for which Poczta Polska does not perform customs clearance under the VAT E-commerce package; customs clearance is handled independently. These primarily include: goods shipped as commercial samples, medicines and medical devices (high risk of shipment detention), food (possible additional inspections), plant and animal products (often subject to separate sanitary regulations), weapons, collectibles and counterfeits (intellectual property rights), electronics with batteries (frequent transport requirements), alcohol and tobacco products (tax regime and quantity restrictions). These goods therefore require special care and adherence to formal requirements, not to mention the need for full customs clearance using the SAD H1 import document.

Other (this time favorable) exceptions

Goods that deviate from the rule regarding proper customs clearance can also have a positive impact on the consumer. These special situations include, among other things, customs duty exemption. Under Article 203(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, non-Union goods that originally had EU status are exempt from import duties as a result of being exported from outside the EU and then re-imported within three years and released for free circulation. Another example, although going beyond sales on foreign sales platforms, are gifts with an actual value of up to €45 – they are completely exempt from customs duty if they are a private-to-private, occasional, free-of-charge, and appropriately marked package (excise goods do not apply here).

How will all this work in practice? The case of Jan K.

To this end, let’s consider two scenarios: in the first, Jan K. managed to snag his dream book for only €50, as it didn’t stand out from the catalog of books available at the second-hand bookstore. In the second, Jan K. paid €300 for “Lokomotywa” (The Locomotive), as it was a collector’s edition, practically unavailable in the current reading market. The AbeBooks platform, like most major American platforms, uses the IOSS system. What path will a consumer of the American sales platform have to take to enjoy their desired book?

Scenario 1: Locomotive below €150

The customs value is immediately apparent – Polish VAT was added to the price of the goods, and payment was made via the AbeBooks platform, while imports at the border are VAT-exempt. Although the flat-rate customs duty of €3 per item should have been paid through the platform, Jan K. should be aware that this amount could have been included in the price of the book itself or in the shipping costs. The parcel was shipped from the USA, and the seller marked it with the platform’s IOSS identification number. Jan K. did not object, so Poczta Polska became the tacit customs representative and processed the clearance automatically, using a simplified H7 customs declaration in the e-commerce system. The parcel was not classified as a collector’s item, which was due to the seller’s precise and detailed descriptions. A Poczta Polska postman delivered the parcel to Jan K., and from that moment on, he was able to immerse himself in Tuwim’s poetry.

Scenario 2: “Locomotive” above €150

Now let’s analyze a slightly less favorable option for Jan K.: Here, customs duty and VAT are not included in the book’s price, which initially pleased Jan K. The seller shipped the package, but because it was shipped from the United States, the carrier must submit an Entry Summary Declaration (ENS) and lodge it with the appropriate customs office before the goods arrive. An ENS would not be necessary only if the sale was made from common transit countries that have concluded agreements with the EU on the recognition of security and safety inspections conducted in these exporting countries, namely Norway, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. When the package reaches Poland, customs and tax systems block its further route, and it is placed under customs supervision. Poczta Polska sent the importer, Jan K., a paper notification (although electronic notification is also possible) about the shipment being held for customs clearance. A terrified Jan K. tried to find out what was happening with his parcel and why it had been detained. He finally discovered that Poczta Polska was not his customs representative. After controlling his emotions, he gathered the necessary documentation, which included proof of purchase, payment confirmation with a breakdown of the price of the goods themselves, shipping fees, and item description, as well as a signed power of attorney, and sent it to Paczka Polska. Poczta Polska, which had become Jan K.’s active representative, processed customs clearance using the AIS-IMPORT system, using full import customs declarations on the SAD H1 document. The customs and tax office then assessed fees: customs duty based on the CN customs classification and VAT based on the tax base, which is the combined price of the goods, transportation fees, and customs duties. This process was successful, the parcel was returned to postal service, and the postman knocked on Jan K.’s door – the importer’s enthusiasm was somewhat lower than in Scenario 1, as he had already incurred customs and VAT costs before beginning the reading.

What if the package arrives damaged?

The complications continue: the package was damaged, and we don’t know who to contact. Since the introduction of the Tax Explanations on July 1, 2021, autonomous tax law creates a legal fiction under which the electronic interface operator is considered a B2C supplier, the platform is therefore obligated to tax and settle the transaction. This solution is primarily beneficial to officials, who find it more convenient to collect VAT from a large platform than from hundreds of smaller sellers. On the other hand, it creates a certain ambiguity – as we established above, the platform is still merely an intermediary under civil law. Why do we see a discrepancy here? Because of the issue of tortious liability.

If the “Locomotive” purchased by Jan K. were lost or destroyed before delivery, from July 2021, the consumer would have to direct warranty or non-performance claims to the Maryland antiquarian bookstore, not the AbeBooks platform (if the damage occurred during transport, i.e., before formal release by customs). It should undergo a qualification process as defective goods, and if approved, the American seller is to make a price adjustment, which will reduce the overall customs value, automatically including the costs of customs duty and VAT. For goods over €150 or of collector’s value, the loss or destruction of a package in the warehouse results in a customs debt, and Poczta Polska becomes the debtor. If damage to goods worth less than €150 occurred during transport by Poczta Polska, after legal qualification and removal of the goods from customs supervision, the postal operator is obligated to pay the VAT, along with default interest.

Despite the many scenarios, one important rule stands out – the platform itself very rarely pays compensation. Based on US court decisions (such as the Bolger vs. Amazon.com, LLC case, in which Angela Bolger suffered serious bodily injury after a laptop battery purchased through Amazon exploded), it can be assumed that the chance of obtaining compensation increases essentially only if the platform controlled the physical delivery process. Or rather, if this can be proven in court. Platform uniqueness, as Janger and Twerski called it in their renowned 2023 analysis, is increasingly being raised as a serious problem for consumer protection and rational risk management. American sales platforms hide behind formal definitions of “sale” and “title,” but in practice, these explanations have little application. This absurdity is particularly evident in models such as FBA (Fulfillment by Amazon), where the platform stores, packages, and ships the goods, and claims the right to substitute without consulting the consumer. The fiction of a “recognized supplier” exists under VAT law, yet remains free from civil liability.

Cost-related catches – what to watch out for so as not to overpay

As the example above shows, the issues of cost and financial responsibility are often ambiguous, so it’s important to understand what additional fees we might be exposed to. Distinguishing the price of the goods from transportation fees, customs duties, and VAT is the first, but not the last, point at which we should consider how much importing goods purchased on an American marketplace will actually cost us. In addition to the components of the customs value, we must also consider other possible fees, such as the cost of insuring the imported goods, loading and handling fees associated with their transport to the national border or a Polish port.

The principle that “determinations of charges for transport costs must be unambiguous, precise, and separate for domestic and international sections” is one of the key aspects of EU customs law. Why is this so important? According to Articles 71 and 72 of the UCC, foreign and domestic sections are treated differently – the customs value of goods increases upon entry into the customs union, whereas within the EU, costs are not included in this value. However, the Act introduces a condition here, specifically a clear separation of goods and transport costs (which is why this had to be clearly stated in Scenario 2 of Jan K. in Jan K.’s documents for Poczta Polska). If only one transport amount appears on the invoice, the customs authority has the right to include 100% of the transport costs in the customs value. This trap, known as the cascading effect, is likely to occur in transactions on online marketplaces, as confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court’s rulings in this case.

The customs authorities’ reasoning can be traced to the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of March 17, 1999 (SA/ Sz 1731/98). In this case, the Spanish wine seller failed to divide costs and sections into foreign and domestic, and the transaction itself resulted in two sets of invoices for different amounts (the second set of invoices had a significantly higher value). The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the importer’s complaint regarding alleged violations of customs and administrative law by the customs authorities, and in its justification, cited the obligation to determine the amount due in a clear and precise manner, using objective and measurable data. The judgment is a reprimand for the company’s arbitrariness.

Separating costs is also important in so-called simplified procedures. As mentioned earlier, the simplified H7 declaration applies to products whose actual value, i.e., the price of the goods themselves, does not exceed €150. If the seller fails to separate the costs on the invoice, shipping costs will be included in the actual value – if this amount exceeds €150, the seller will have to go through the full customs procedure. Failure to clearly present the cost breakdown could also impact the efficiency of the entire import procedure. Because the simplified H7 declaration is processed automatically by the National Tax Administration, the algorithm may detect irregularities in the declared data, which may result in document revisions or a physical inspection of the package. This, in turn, can generate potential delays and other problems.

There are also minor and often overlooked issues, such as different CN codes for goods in the same package. A separate flat-rate customs duty must be paid for each item from a different line item. Let’s not forget the mundane, yet utterly human, issue: if the item we ordered doesn’t meet our expectations and we want to return it, the customs and VAT costs will not be refunded. With this in mind, it’s important to weigh the pros and cons before making a final decision.

Summary

The purchase of Tuwim’s “Locomotive,” besides its aesthetic appeal, undoubtedly provided Jan K. with insight into the EU customs system for goods imported from outside the European Union, specifically the USA. The most important lessons learned from this lesson include an awareness of the consumer’s role when importing goods from outside the EU and their customs and tax obligations, as well as the operating principles and powers of the Polish Post, along with its requirements for importers. The potential costs incurred by both consumers and sellers in transactions made via the online marketplace were also analyzed. A study of regulations and specific examples demonstrated the importance of a properly conducted procedure for both parties, so as to avoid unnecessary financial burdens on either side.

In the current era of globalization and the development of global export giants, purchasing products and services online is inevitable. American platforms such as Amazon, eBay , Wayfair, Target, and Walmart, having established a stable and strong position in the global market, conduct sales primarily focused on protecting their structures and generating profits. Therefore, as Polish consumers of American products, we should, above all, protect our own interests and financial security, be aware of the dangers and risks associated with ignorance of appropriate customs procedures and our obligations as a party to the transaction. In other words, let’s follow the example of Jan K., who fulfilled his desire for a unique book by studying his consumer rights and responsibilities on the American platform AbeBooks.

Bibliography:

Legal acts:

Act of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 775, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/17086198/444640770/podatek-od-towarow-i-uslug?keyword=podatek%20od%20towar%C3%B3w%20i%20us%C5%82ug%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Act of 19 March 2004 – Customs Law (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1373). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/17088507/441956979/prawo-celne?keyword=ustawa%20prawo%20celne%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (codified version) (OJ L 324, 2009, p. 23, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/67914249/3571055/rozporzadzenie-1186-2009-ustanawiajace-wspolnotowy-system-zwolnien-celnych-wersja-ujednolicona?keyword=Rozporzadzenie%C4%85dzenie%201186%2F2009%20ustanawiaj%C4%85ce%20ws%C3%B3lnotowy%20system%20zwolnie%C5%84%20celnych%20(wersja%20ujednolicona)&searchPit=2026-07-15

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 2013, p. 1, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/68359246/176766672/rozporzadzenie-952-2013-ustanawiajace-unijny-kodeks-celny?keyword=Rozporz%C4%85dzenie%20952%2F2013%20ustanawiaj%C4%85ce%20unijny%20kodeks%20celny%20z%201%20maja%202016%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 2015, p. 558, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/68591768/181445989/rozporzadzenie-wykonawcze-2015-2447-ustanawiajace-szczegolowe-zasady-wykonania-niektorych…?keyword=Rozporzadzenie%20wykonawcze%202015%2F2447%20z%201%20maja%202016%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Ministry of Finance. (2021, September 1). Tax clarifications regarding the so-called VAT e-commerce package introduced by the Act of May 20, 2021, amending the Act on Value Added Tax and certain other acts (Journal of Laws, item 1163) . https://www.podatki.gov.pl

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in Szczecin of 17 March 1999, SA/ Sz 1731/98, M.Podat. 2000, no. 5, item 29.

https://sip.lex.pl/#/jurisprudence/520132316/1?directHit=true&directHitQuery=SA%2FSZ%201731%2F98

Artykuł A well-aimed shot at American e-commerce. A practical guide to customs clearance of US shipments through the Polish Post. pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The holiday season is in full swing, but our litigation team remains fully alert — and fully engaged. The best proof: ongoing preparations for proceedings before the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg in one of the most complex categories of disputes — EU grant litigation.

What is the dispute about?

We represent a client — a beneficiary of a grant awarded under an EU framework programme — in a dispute with the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA). At the heart of the dispute lies the allegation of so-called technology abandonment (departure from the technology) — the EU agency’s claim that, in the course of the project, the beneficiary departed from the technology on which the funding decision was based, which, in the Agency’s view, justifies a demand for repayment of the funds.

This is one of the most difficult and most judgment-laden categories of allegations in grant disputes. The line between impermissible “abandonment” of a technology and the natural — indeed expected — evolution of a solution in a research and innovation project is fluid, and where that line is drawn determines the fate of the entire funding. Disputes of this kind require navigating simultaneously the grant agreement regime, European Union law and the technological specifics of the project.

A direct action before the EU General Court

The dispute will be brought before the General Court of the European Union by way of a direct action based on the arbitration clause contained in the grant agreement (Article 272 TFEU). As part of the preparations, our attorneys-at-law have set up individual representative accounts in e-Curia — the mandatory electronic filing system of the EU courts — and stand ready to represent the client at every stage of the proceedings in Luxembourg.

What does this mean for you?

If your company is implementing, or has implemented, an EU-funded project (Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, EIC Accelerator and others) and you have received a letter from an EU institution questioning the implementation of the project, an audit notification, a debit note or a repayment demand — you are not without recourse. Decisions and demands of EU executive agencies are subject to review, and beneficiaries have real legal remedies at their disposal, including judicial proceedings before the EU General Court.

Our litigation team combines experience in civil and commercial disputes with hands-on knowledge of EU law, the EU grant regime and the procedure before the EU courts.

Feel free to reach out — holiday season included. We are not slowing down.

Artykuł Summer holidays? Not for our litigation team. We are preparing a dispute before the EU General Court pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

We are delighted to share an important milestone in the continued development of KG Legal’s Data, AI & Cybersecurity Desk.

It has been a great honour to serve as the exclusive expert contributors for Poland to the OneTrust DataGuidance Privacy Overview – Poland, one of the world’s leading professional legal compliance resources relied upon by in-house counsel, privacy professionals, compliance officers, multinational organisations and technology companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Preparing this contribution was a long-term project that required several months of intensive legal analysis, research and editorial work. Our objective was not simply to describe the application of the GDPR in Poland. Instead, we sought to create a practical and comprehensive guide reflecting the significant transformation of the Polish regulatory landscape that has taken place in recent years as a result of new European legislation and its implementation into Polish law.

The publication therefore extends far beyond a traditional overview of Polish data protection law. It examines the interaction between privacy, digital regulation, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, providing readers with practical guidance on the most important legal developments affecting organisations operating in Poland.

Our contribution discusses, among other things:

• the practical application of the GDPR within the Polish legal system;
• the powers and regulatory practice of the Polish supervisory authority for personal data protection;
• employee monitoring and workplace privacy;
• cookies, consent mechanisms and online tracking technologies;
• electronic communications and direct marketing requirements;
• international data transfers;
• personal data breaches and notification obligations;
• practical compliance with Polish privacy legislation;
• cybersecurity-related regulatory developments;
• the growing interaction between data protection and artificial intelligence governance.

A particularly important aspect of this work was addressing the rapidly evolving legislative environment. During the last few years, Poland has experienced substantial regulatory changes resulting from the implementation of numerous European legal instruments and the entry into force of directly applicable EU regulations that significantly affect organisations processing personal data.

Accordingly, the publication takes into account the practical implications of the evolving European digital regulatory framework, including the interaction between the GDPR and newer legal instruments governing digital services, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and data governance. The analysis also reflects the impact of the AI regulatory framework, developments concerning data governance and electronic communications, as well as the increasingly interconnected compliance obligations facing businesses operating in today’s digital economy.

Rather than presenting legislation in isolation, the publication adopts a practical, compliance-oriented perspective. It combines:

• the GDPR and Polish implementing legislation;
• guidance issued by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB);
• the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
• decisions and regulatory guidance published by the Polish Personal Data Protection Office (UODO);
• recent Polish legislative developments and market practice.

Our ambition was to create a resource that would assist both international and domestic organisations in navigating one of the fastest-changing areas of European regulation, where privacy law increasingly intersects with cybersecurity, AI governance, digital platforms, online communications and emerging technologies.

The contribution was prepared by Małgorzata Kiełtyka and Jakub Gładkowski, whose combined experience covers complex cross-border advisory work in data protection, artificial intelligence, life sciences, healthcare, technology law, cybersecurity, intellectual property and regulatory compliance.

https://www.dataguidance.com/experts-directory/Jakub_G%C5%82adkowski

https://www.dataguidance.com/experts-directory/Malgorzata_Kieltyka

For many years, Małgorzata Kiełtyka has advised international companies on GDPR compliance, healthcare regulation, AI governance, technology transactions and cross-border regulatory matters. Her practice combines strategic legal advice with practical implementation of compliance frameworks for multinational businesses operating in highly regulated sectors.

Jakub Gładkowski focuses on data protection, digital regulation, cybersecurity, intellectual property, IT law and emerging technologies. His practice includes advising innovative businesses on regulatory compliance, digital transformation projects and the implementation of European technology legislation affecting both public and private sector organisations.

Being entrusted with preparing Poland’s national contribution to OneTrust DataGuidance represents an important recognition of our team’s expertise and international standing. We are particularly proud that this publication reflects not only our experience in privacy law, but also our broader interdisciplinary approach, integrating data protection with AI regulation, cybersecurity, digital compliance and technology law.

We sincerely thank the editorial team at OneTrust DataGuidance for their confidence in our expertise and for the opportunity to contribute to a publication that supports legal and compliance professionals around the world.

For KG Legal, this publication marks another significant milestone in the continued growth of our Data, AI & Cybersecurity Desk and reinforces our commitment to delivering practical, business-oriented legal advice at the intersection of privacy, technology and innovation.

Artykuł A Major Milestone for KG Legal’s Data, AI & Cybersecurity Practice: Exclusive Poland Contribution to OneTrust DataGuidance pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The Polish dietary supplements market is facing the most significant regulatory overhaul in years. The draft amendment to the Act on Food and Nutrition Safety and the Act on the State Sanitary Inspectorate introduces a series of far-reaching changes that will substantially alter the way supplements are notified, monitored, advertised, and supervised in Poland. While the reform does not formally introduce a pre-market authorization system, it undeniably strengthens the position of regulatory authorities and increases the compliance burden imposed on businesses operating in the sector.

The amendment, expected to enter into force six months after publication, reflects both domestic concerns regarding the rapid expansion of the supplements market and the broader European trend toward stricter food safety oversight. For manufacturers, importers, distributors, and marketing agencies, the proposed changes may require a complete reassessment of internal procedures, legal risk management, and commercial strategy.

The reform arrives at a time when the Polish dietary supplements market continues to expand at an exceptional pace. Poland has become one of the largest supplement consumers in the European Union, both in terms of total market value and per capita spending. According to market estimates, the sector exceeded PLN 7 billion in value in 2024 and is expected to continue growing steadily over the coming years. The scale of the market alone has become a challenge for regulators. Between 2017 and 2020, more than 62,000 supplement notifications were submitted to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS), while the number of products listed in official registers exceeded 29,000.

At the same time, authorities increasingly pointed to systemic weaknesses in the existing framework. Under the current rules, a business may place a dietary supplement on the market immediately after submitting a notification to GIS, even if doubts exist regarding the product’s composition or classification. The authorities may initiate explanatory proceedings, but the product can still remain commercially available during the investigation. In practice, this system has often been criticized for providing insufficient preventive control and allowing potentially problematic products to circulate before any meaningful assessment takes place.

Another major concern involved the widespread use of aggressive advertising strategies. For years, the dietary supplements industry has been accused of blurring the line between supplements and medicinal products. Many advertisements indirectly suggested therapeutic effects or implied that supplements could substitute proper medical treatment or balanced nutrition. Regulators and pharmaceutical companies repeatedly argued that existing penalties were too low to deter large market participants from engaging in questionable promotional practices.

The lack of a centralized digital supervision system also contributed to inefficiencies. The notification process relied partly on outdated administrative mechanisms, resulting in difficulties with document verification, inconsistent communication, and lengthy proceedings. The new amendment seeks to address these concerns through digitalization, stricter procedural obligations, and substantially higher financial sanctions.

One of the most visible changes introduced by the reform is the mandatory use of the e-Sanepid platform for all supplement notifications. Until now, notifications could be submitted either electronically or in paper form, and businesses had some flexibility regarding the form and timing of submission. Under the new rules, however, the process becomes fully digitized. Notifications will only be accepted through the e-Sanepid system and will require either a qualified electronic signature or a trusted electronic profile.

This change may appear largely technical at first glance, but in reality it significantly increases the formalization of the entire notification process. For large companies with developed compliance departments, adapting to electronic communication systems is unlikely to create serious difficulties. Smaller businesses, however, may face operational and financial challenges connected with digital authentication tools, procedural monitoring, and document management requirements.

The amendment also changes the moment at which the notification obligation arises. Previously, the law referred both to products already introduced to the market and those merely intended for future introduction. The new wording removes the reference to “intended introduction,” meaning that the obligation will arise only once the product is actually being placed on the market. Although this clarification simplifies the legal interpretation of the obligation, it also narrows the flexibility businesses previously enjoyed when planning product launches.

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the reform concerns explanatory proceedings and scientific opinions. Under the current framework, businesses could effectively delay proceedings indefinitely by postponing the submission of required scientific documentation. While the law imposed certain deadlines on the authorities themselves, it did not establish sufficiently strict obligations for the notifying entity. This created situations where proceedings remained unresolved for years, significantly limiting the effectiveness of supervision.

The amendment introduces a much stricter procedural regime. Once GIS requests a scientific opinion regarding a product’s classification or compliance, the business will have only 14 days to submit an application to a scientific institution or to the President of the Office for Registration of Medicinal Products. Furthermore, the scientific opinion itself must generally be issued within six months, with an absolute maximum period of twelve months in exceptional cases.

The most significant innovation is the introduction of a legal presumption against the entrepreneur. If the entity fails to submit the application for an opinion within the required 14-day period, the law will automatically presume that the proposed classification of the product is incorrect and that the product does not meet the requirements applicable to its category. In practical terms, procedural inactivity itself may lead to negative legal consequences.

This fundamentally changes the balance between businesses and regulatory authorities. Previously, delaying the process often worked in favor of companies by allowing products to remain on the market while proceedings continued. Under the new rules, inaction may immediately weaken the entrepreneur’s legal position. Businesses will therefore need to implement much stricter internal monitoring systems to ensure compliance with procedural deadlines.

The amendment additionally prohibits businesses from circumventing the procedure by repeatedly submitting notifications for identical products. Once proceedings are initiated, companies will no longer be able to submit another notification concerning a product with the same qualitative and quantitative composition. Similarly, withdrawing a notification will not allow the entrepreneur to restart the process with the same formula at a later stage. These restrictions are intended to eliminate procedural abuse and prevent companies from avoiding regulatory scrutiny through repeated filings.

Another major reform concerns transparency and the expansion of the public product register maintained within the SEPIS system. The current register already contains certain information regarding notified products, but the scope of publicly available data remains relatively limited. The new system significantly broadens the amount of information accessible to consumers and competitors alike.

Under the amendment, the register will include the product name, form of the product, qualitative composition, information regarding active substances, details concerning explanatory proceedings, and information about prohibited ingredients. Although quantitative composition data and certain identifying information regarding the reporting entity will remain confidential, the reform nevertheless represents a substantial increase in market transparency.

From the consumer protection perspective, this may be viewed as a positive development. Consumers will gain easier access to information about supplement composition and regulatory status, potentially allowing for more informed purchasing decisions. However, from the business perspective, the new transparency rules create considerable reputational risks. Information regarding ongoing explanatory proceedings may become publicly visible long before any final administrative decision is issued. As a result, companies may face reputational damage even in situations where no violation is ultimately confirmed.

The reform also updates the broader inspection framework to align Polish law with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls. Although the regulation has already been directly applicable across the European Union since 2019, several references in Polish legislation still pointed to repealed EU acts. The amendment therefore modernizes the legal terminology and adapts national provisions to the currently binding European framework.

Importantly, however, the changes do not significantly expand the substantive powers of sanitary authorities. The amendment primarily introduces terminological adjustments, extending references from “official food controls” to “official controls and other official activities.” Sanitary authorities will continue to possess extensive powers during inspections, including access to facilities, examination of production processes and documentation, and collection of samples for laboratory testing.

The reform does, however, expand the situations in which businesses must bear the costs of inspections and administrative activities. In addition to existing obligations related to violations, follow-up inspections, and border sanitary controls, businesses will now also be required to cover costs associated with official activities performed at their own request, such as the issuance of certain documents. While this change may appear relatively modest compared to other parts of the reform, it nevertheless contributes to the overall increase in operational costs for market participants.

One of the most controversial elements of the amendment concerns advertising and marketing practices. The reform significantly broadens the scope of administrative liability related to the promotion and presentation of dietary supplements. Previously, penalties focused primarily on incorrect product labeling. Under the new rules, liability will explicitly extend to advertising, online promotion, social media activities, and the overall presentation of products.

Most importantly, the amendment introduces severe sanctions for advertising or presenting a supplement before notifying GIS. This is likely to have a major impact on digital marketing strategies commonly used in the supplements industry. Influencer campaigns, online pre-launch promotions, teaser advertisements, and social media product announcements may all potentially fall within the scope of the new sanctions if conducted before formal notification.

The amendment also reinforces existing prohibitions against suggesting that a balanced diet cannot provide sufficient nutrients or implying medicinal properties of supplements. Although these prohibitions already existed under current law, the reform significantly strengthens enforcement mechanisms by attaching much higher financial penalties to violations.

Indeed, the increase in administrative penalties represents one of the most dramatic aspects of the reform. Under the current framework, the maximum administrative fine generally amounts to thirty times the average monthly salary. The amendment raises this threshold to one hundred times the average salary, increasing potential penalties by more than 330 percent.

Based on current economic indicators, maximum fines could exceed PLN 800,000. Such amounts are clearly intended to function as genuinely deterrent sanctions rather than symbolic administrative measures. For large corporations with extensive marketing operations, these penalties may significantly alter risk calculations related to aggressive advertising or borderline compliance practices.

For businesses operating in the supplements sector, the cumulative impact of these changes may be substantial. Compliance costs are likely to increase considerably. Companies may need to invest in legal advisory services, digital infrastructure, scientific assessments, employee training, and enhanced compliance monitoring systems. Marketing departments in particular will face increased scrutiny and will need to carefully verify advertising content before publication.

The reform may also contribute to market consolidation. Large, well-established companies are generally better positioned to absorb increased compliance costs and adapt to stricter regulatory requirements. Smaller businesses, startups, and niche supplement brands may struggle with the financial and administrative burden created by the new framework. As a result, the amendment could unintentionally reduce market diversity and strengthen the competitive position of major industry players.

From the perspective of public authorities, the reform aims to improve the efficiency and credibility of food safety supervision. Digitalization through e-Sanepid and SEPIS is expected to accelerate administrative processes, improve data analysis capabilities, and strengthen market oversight. The introduction of strict procedural deadlines should also reduce the risk of excessively lengthy proceedings and administrative disputes.

At the same time, the implementation of these systems will require significant investments in technological infrastructure and administrative capacity. The effectiveness of the reform will therefore depend not only on the wording of the legislation itself, but also on the practical ability of GIS and related institutions to manage the new digital environment efficiently.

Ultimately, the amendment does not formally transform dietary supplements into products requiring prior authorization before market entry. Businesses will still be able to introduce supplements through a notification-based system rather than a licensing procedure. Nevertheless, the practical reality of operating in the sector is likely to change considerably.

The reform substantially increases the procedural obligations imposed on businesses, strengthens enforcement tools available to authorities, raises financial exposure connected with non-compliance, and introduces far greater transparency into the market. While these changes may improve consumer protection and market oversight, they also create new operational and reputational risks for entrepreneurs.

For companies active in the supplements industry, the coming months may therefore become a critical period of preparation. Businesses that fail to adapt quickly to the new regulatory environment may face not only financial penalties, but also significant disruptions to their commercial operations and marketing strategies.

Artykuł Dietary Supplements Under Tightened Scrutiny: How the 2026 Reform Could Reshape the Polish Market pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

On June 19, 2026, representatives of our law firm will participate in the Data Science Summit AI Edition 2026, which will be held at the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw. For many years, the event has been one of the most important technology conferences in Central and Eastern Europe, bringing together specialists responsible for the development and implementation of the most advanced solutions based on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analysis. It provides a meeting place for the business, technology, scientific, and administrative communities—a space where implementation practice meets regulatory and strategic reflection.

Link to the event: https://ml.dssconf.pl/#agenda

This year’s edition focuses on the most important directions of development of modern artificial intelligence, including, among others, generative AI ( Generative AI), large language models (LLM), GPT systems, AI agents, Agent-to-Agent (A2A) architectures, Context Model Protocol (MCP), reinforcement learning, computer vision, predictive analytics, MLOps, LLMOps, AI governance and broadly understood data-driven business transformation.

The conference is aimed at data scientists, AI experts, data engineers, IT system architects, programmers, cybersecurity specialists, digital transformation leaders, product development managers, public administration representatives, and executives of enterprises implementing AI-based solutions. Speakers will include representatives of global technology companies, international corporations, financial institutions, telecommunications operators, energy companies, research and development organizations, academia, and technology startups – including AI directors, chief system architects, digital transformation leaders, scientists, AI engineers, MLOps experts, cybersecurity specialists, and managers responsible for implementing technological innovations.

The event is distinguished by its practical nature. The program focuses not only on presenting technological innovations, but primarily on showcasing real-world implementations already in place in businesses, public administration, the financial and energy sectors, e-commerce, telecommunications, healthcare, and industry.

Enterprise AI – From Experiment to Infrastructure

One of the most important themes of the conference is the practical use of artificial intelligence in production environments. It is increasingly clear that AI has ceased to be an experimental technology and has become a component of real-world business infrastructure. In this context, we are analyzing ways to counteract the phenomenon of so-called information bubbles and build more sustainable recommendation systems used by the largest media platforms. Methods are emerging to increase the diversity of presented content, reduce algorithmic bias, and design systems that responsibly influence user behavior.

A key issue is the collaboration between classic machine learning and generative AI. Combining both approaches allows for the development of scalable, cost-effective solutions, ready for use by large organizations. A significant portion of the discussion also focuses on countering financial fraud – methods for detecting fraud and building competitive advantage through structured AI system development processes. Developer experience and modern work environments for AI teams are also gaining importance, including ways to accelerate the creation and maintenance of AI-based applications.

The technological landscape is strongly influenced by the prototyping of AI agents using modern programming environments and platforms supporting the creation of autonomous systems. Simultaneously, there are emerging themes regarding the use of AI in the legal sector – methods for assessing the reasoning ability of language models, methods for tracing legal sources, and techniques for increasing the reliability of AI-generated responses. From a security perspective, mechanisms for securing autonomous systems against attacks, unauthorized access, and attempts to manipulate their behavior are particularly important.

Equally important is the optimization of language models – techniques for quantization, distillation, and model size reduction while maintaining high efficiency. In the financial sector, solutions are emerging that include automated document processing, data extraction, and the development of intelligent analytical platforms. As an illustration of the creative potential of AI, the mechanisms behind music generation by artificial intelligence and the application of deep learning in creative processes are also discussed.

Generative AI – Multimodality, Agents, and Public Administration

Generative AI is one of the fastest-growing areas of contemporary technology. In production practice, it is used to automatically describe works of art, create alternative descriptions that increase the accessibility of digital documents for people with disabilities, and develop strategies for replacing very large and expensive language models with smaller, specialized solutions that can be effectively used in enterprises. The evolution of architectures leads from simple prompts, through RAG mechanisms, to multi-stage pipelines integrating multiple data sources and advanced LLM architectures.

Multimodality plays a significant role – solutions that can simultaneously analyze text, images, sound, and spatial information – opening the door to building more versatile AI systems. In enterprise environments where standard communication protocols aren’t feasible, building agents that exclusively utilize approved APIs, internal tools, and development platforms becomes crucial, while adhering to security and governance principles.

A crucial direction is the use of artificial intelligence in public administration, including the process of transforming an AI project into a product accessible to millions of citizens. Solutions that generate sound, speech, and music using modern diffusion models and transformers are also gaining importance, as are automatic analysis of PDF documents and the extraction of structured data from multi-page administrative materials. Hybrid pipelines combining generative AI, signal processing, and embedded systems for use in resource-constrained devices are also emerging. A separate, increasingly important issue is assessing the quality of RAG chatbots, testing them before deployment, and building reliable conversational systems.

Machine learning in practice – recommendations, energy, finance

Classic machine learning remains relevant – on the contrary, it’s finding applications in major industrial and financial implementations. Modern recommendation systems are emerging, based on data representation vectors and embedding architectures, where balancing recommendation effectiveness with the ability for users to discover new content is paramount. Digital twins are being used to optimize energy assets and manage industrial infrastructure. In the financial sector, teams of collaborative models are emerging to support decision-making processes.

The challenges associated with AI agents operating in social media are increasingly being discussed – issues such as user privacy, data security, and customer interaction design. In the banking sector, there’s a clear trend toward building millions of personalized models operating in parallel, which requires advanced training optimization, system scaling, and efficient processing of massive data sets.

Deployments, MLOps, and Security – The AI Systems Lifecycle

One of the most practical areas of the event is implementing, maintaining, and scaling AI systems in production environments. Simply developing a model is no longer the biggest challenge; ensuring its stable, secure, and effective operation in real-world business environments is crucial.

The security of generative AI is becoming one of the most pressing issues. Practical methods are emerging to protect models from prompts, injection, jailbreaking, and attempts to bypass control mechanisms. Referring to OWASP guidelines and modern solutions enabling the implementation of AI systems in accordance with the security- by-design principle is becoming standard.

From a legal perspective, issues related to designing global data platforms operating simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions are particularly important. These challenges include data sovereignty, local regulations, and the need to reconcile legal requirements across different jurisdictions.

A key theme is the full lifecycle of machine learning models – the processes of building, deploying, monitoring, updating, and retiring AI models, as well as how to manage their performance at scale. System performance optimization plays a significant role – techniques for reducing latency, shortening inference times, and adapting models to various hardware environments. Case studies from the pharmaceutical sector also appear, demonstrating how to manage chatbots’ deviance from their original purpose and how to minimize the risk of generating undesirable responses. Simultaneously, computer model optimization techniques are being developed, allowing to increase their efficiency many times while maintaining high quality of prediction.

Monitoring LLM systems and AI agents before end-user errors occur is becoming particularly important. Systems for model tracking, automated evaluation, anomaly detection, cost management, and continuous response quality improvement are emerging. Solutions are emerging that enable the management of thousands of AI agents and their evaluation at scale. This is complemented by approaches based on GitMLOps, DevSecOps, and modern observability solutions for systems based on large language models.

AI Agents – Autonomous Decision-Making Systems

One of the most important areas of the conference is AI agents. Modern artificial intelligence is increasingly moving beyond the role of a mere tool for human support and instead becoming an autonomous system capable of executing complex business processes. Methods are emerging for assessing the effectiveness of large-scale multi-agent systems – methods for automated testing, reliability testing, tracing error sources, and building systems that guarantee repeatable results. Significant attention is being paid to monitoring agents in real time, identifying errors, measuring response quality, and continuously improving decision-making processes.

Issues related to the security of AI agents are becoming increasingly important, including attack scenarios that confuse autonomous systems and methods for securing them against manipulation. Practical applications of agents utilizing financial, registry, and business data are emerging, supporting analytical, scoring, and decision-making processes. AI agents are also finding applications in telecommunications and in the construction of systems that independently conduct research and analysis.

Agents’ long-term memory plays a significant role – solutions utilizing knowledge graphs and mechanisms that enable agents to independently organize and expand their accumulated knowledge. Real-time voice agents are highly practical – systems capable of conducting telephone conversations with users, analyzing speech, and generating responses that approximate natural communication. Solutions are also emerging that enable automatic detection of problems arising during the operation of production agents and the generation of evaluation processes without human intervention. Applications also include systems supporting energy management, intelligent buildings, and Internet of Things devices. A separate, important area is the evaluation of Text -to-SQL systems, which enable the automatic conversion of natural language into database queries.

Development and tuning of large language models

A significant portion of the conference was devoted to the creation, training, and refinement of large-scale language models. The most common errors made when building AI models are increasingly understood, as is the significant impact that the proper selection of training data has on their quality. Specialized models for the banking sector are being developed, along with methods for adapting them to specific business applications.

A significant area of research is Polish multimodal models capable of simultaneously understanding text and images, including methods for building them with limited data resources. Techniques for simplifying official and administrative language using language models are also emerging, with a particular emphasis on increasing the accessibility of public transportation. Mechanisms for building trust in artificial intelligence by providing users with justifications for generated responses are gaining increasing importance. Embedding models, used to identify duplicate data, ambiguous names, and unstructured addresses, are becoming increasingly important in everyday business practice.

Business Transformation – Strategy, Data, and Organization

From a strategic perspective, artificial intelligence is becoming one of the most important elements in building a competitive advantage for enterprises. Practical experience is emerging with implementing generative AI in international organizations and managing technological transformation processes. Methods for identifying the most promising AI initiatives from among hundreds of potential projects are becoming increasingly important.

Data quality plays a significant role – proper data preparation is now a prerequisite for the effective implementation of artificial intelligence. Critical analysis of technological trends is also emerging, allowing us to separate the true capabilities of AI from marketing hype. The importance of data architecture and IT systems for the success of transformation projects is becoming increasingly clear. The debate on the future of management in the era of agent-based AI and the changes AI will bring to corporate organizational structures is particularly prominent. Examples of building scalable customer service agents operating simultaneously in multiple countries are also emerging, as are the experiences of large organizations implementing AI, developing data products, supporting business expansion, and transforming the banking sector.

AI in Software Development – Regulation, Security, and Intellectual Property

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally changing the way technology teams work. Building local systems to support programming in compliance with European regulations, including the AI Act and NIS2, is becoming increasingly important. Both the potential and limitations of modern programming assistants are emerging, including the reasons for the failure of AI agents working with enterprise data and ways to build more predictable systems.

Cybersecurity, threat modeling, and vulnerability management in AI-based systems are all important topics, as are the practical aspects of building agent platforms capable of operating in production environments. From a legal perspective, issues related to intellectual property protection, commercialization of AI-based solutions, copyright management, and building secure technological product development processes are particularly important.

Computer Vision – intelligent image analysis

Modern image analysis goes far beyond classical object recognition. New approaches are emerging to using visual models in unusual applications, including Visual RAG systems that enable automated processing of data contained in spreadsheets and corporate documents. The technological trade-offs involved in designing high-performance pipelines are increasingly understood. computer vision. Computer vision is also used in climate forecasting and analysis of environmental phenomena, as well as in automatic data extraction from Polish administrative and business documents.

Debates about the future of artificial intelligence

An integral part of the event are expert roundtable discussions. The role of software agents is discussed – whether they will become merely a tool to support specialists or will they take over some of their responsibilities. The use of AI agents as digital equivalents of junior engineers supporting data science teams is also discussed. Experts engage in debates on the labeling of AI-generated content and the transparency of AI systems.

A separate discussion is devoted to Europe’s technological sovereignty and the possibility of building an independent artificial intelligence ecosystem. The discussion concludes with a discussion on the competencies of the future and the skills that will become crucial for organizations to function in an AI-based economy.

The Data Science Summit AI Edition 2026 demonstrates that artificial intelligence is no longer just a technology of the future. It has become one of the most important tools shaping modern businesses, public administration, and the financial, energy, industrial, and technology sectors. The scale and scope of the topics covered confirm that AI development today requires not only advanced technological competencies but also appropriate risk management, security, regulatory compliance, and a responsible approach to implementing new technologies – making law firms’ participation in such events a natural part of tracking the directions in which new technologies law is heading.

#DataScienceSummit #AIEdition2026 #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #MachineLearning #GenerativeAI #LLM #GPT #AIAgents #AgenticAI #AgentToAgent #ModelContextProtocol #MCP #DeepLearning #ReinforcementLearning #ComputerVision #PredictiveAnalytics #MLOps #LLMOps #AIGovernance #ResponsibleAI #AIEthics #AISecurity #PromptInjection #Jailbreaking #SecurityByDesign #OWASP #DevSecOps #GitMLOps #CyberSecurity #DataSovereignty #AIAct #NIS2 #EURegulations #TechSovereignty #DigitalTransformation #BusinessTransformation #DataDriven #DataQuality #DataEngineering #DataScience #CloudComputing #RAG #VisualRAG #Multimodal #Multimodality #Embeddings #VectorSearch #Quantization #ModelDistillation #FineTuning #TextToSQL #KnowledgeGraphs #VoiceAgents #ConversationalAI #Chatbots #DigitalTwins #IoT #SmartBuildings #EnergyManagement #FinTech #BankingAI #LegalTech #LawFirm #IntellectualProperty #Copyright #PublicAdministration #GovTech #HealthcareAI #PharmaAI #Telecommunications #SoftwareDevelopment #AIAssistants #CodingAgents #Innovation #TechConference #Warsaw #CEE #KGLegal #KieltykaGladkowski

Artykuł Representatives of our law firm KG LEGAL KIEŁTYKA GŁADKOWSKI will take part in the Data Science Summit AI Edition 2026 – one of the largest events dedicated to artificial intelligence in Central and Eastern Europe 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.

A family foundation is a relatively new institution in Polish law, introduced two years ago by the Act of January 26, 2023, on Family Foundations. The ability to establish such an entity was introduced primarily to enable entrepreneurs to secure the succession of their businesses in an undivided form, as well as to ensure the implementation of their own vision for managing them even longer after the founder’s death. Only a natural person with full legal capacity can be the founder of a family foundation. They can establish the foundation and designate its beneficiaries—themselves, relatives, or public benefit organizations—in their will or deed of incorporation. Both deeds should be executed by a notary. Unlike an Anglo-Saxon trust, a family foundation is not a legal relationship but a separate legal entity. Upon establishment, it acquires legal capacity and becomes a so-called “imperfect legal person.”

Tax benefits

Some use foundations to reduce, or rather optimize, their tax liabilities. According to the Corporate Income Tax Act, a foundation is exempt from, among other things, corporate income tax (CIT) if it conducts business activities. However, permissible business activities are defined by the framework set forth in Article 5 of the Family Foundation Act. Permitted forms of activity include:

– disposal of property, unless the property was acquired solely for the purpose of further disposal;

– renting, leasing or making property available for use on another basis;

– joining commercial companies, investment funds, cooperatives and entities of a similar nature, having their registered office in the country or abroad, as well as participating in these companies, funds, cooperatives and entities;

– acquisition and sale of securities, derivative instruments and rights of a similar nature (and others).

Establishment of the Family Foundation

According to the law, the establishment of a family foundation requires:

1) submitting a declaration of establishment of a family foundation in the founding act or in the will;

The documents should be in the form of a notarial deed.

2) establishing a statute that

*mandatory includes:

-name of the family foundation;

-seat of the family foundation;

-detailed purpose of the family foundation;

– the beneficiary or the method of defining it and the scope of the beneficiary’s rights;

– rules for maintaining the list of beneficiaries;

– rules, including detailed procedures, for waiving rights by the beneficiary;

-duration of the family foundation, if specified;

-value of the founding fund;

– the principles of appointment and dismissal, as well as the rights and obligations of members of the bodies of a family foundation, as well as the principles of representation of the family foundation by the management board or by other bodies of the family foundation in cases specified in the Act;

– entity authorized to approve the activities of the management board of a family foundation in the organization;

-principles of amending the statute;

– the allocation of the property of a family foundation after its dissolution, including the designation of the beneficiary entitled to the property in connection with the dissolution of the family foundation.

*may additionally contain:

– principles of cooperation or collaboration between the bodies of a family foundation;

– detailed circumstances of the dissolution of the family foundation;

– guidelines for investing the assets of a family foundation;

-provide for the establishment of a field unit or field units.

3) preparing an inventory of property which includes:

– Property rights contributed by the founder or persons other than the founder to the family foundation, with the indication of the person contributing the property and the specification of the type and value of each of the contributed property components, in the amount determined according to the condition and prices at the time of their contribution and their tax value,

-determination of the proportions used to determine the PIT exemption

– a list of property contributed to the family foundation to cover the founding fund.

4) establishing the bodies of the family foundation required by law or the statute;

– the Act enumerates: the management board, the supervisory board and the meeting of beneficiaries.

– The management board is appointed, unless the statute provides otherwise, by the founder and, after his death, by the supervisory board. In the absence of a supervisory board, the election is made by the meeting of beneficiaries. The management board’s duties include:

• managing the affairs of the family foundation and representing it;
• realization of the goals of the family foundation specified in the statute;
• taking actions related to ensuring the financial liquidity and solvency of the family foundation;
• creating, maintaining and updating the list of beneficiaries in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the principles contained in the statute;
• informing the beneficiary about the benefit he or she is entitled to;
• fulfillment of the benefit to which the beneficiary is entitled.

– A supervisory board is not mandatory if there are 25 or fewer beneficiaries. Unless the statute provides otherwise, the appointment and dismissal of supervisory board members is made by the founder, and after the founder’s death, by the meeting of beneficiaries.

5) contribution of the founding fund

 before entering the family foundation register in the case of establishing a family foundation in the founding act, or contributing the founding fund within two years from the date of entering the family foundation in the family foundation register in the case of establishing a family foundation in a will;

– the founding capital is specified in the statute, but cannot be lower than PLN 100,000

– the sole person obliged to contribute assets to cover the founding fund is the founder.

– property contributed to the founding fund cannot be returned.

– A foundation account may be established outside the territory of the Republic of Poland . This is not subject to restrictions in the European Union. Outside the EU, using such an account will constitute foreign exchange transactions and therefore require a foreign exchange permit from the President of the National Bank of Poland or a director authorized by him.

6) entry into the register of family foundations.

-The register of family foundations is maintained by the District Court in Piotrków Trybunalski, hereinafter referred to as the “registry court”.

-the proceedings are generally conducted in accordance with the provisions on non-contentious proceedings,

– the application for entry is submitted by submitting the foundation to the register by the founder or the board in the case of a foundation established in a will

-The application should include

• name of the family foundation, its registered office and address;
• the amount of the founding fund of the family foundation;
• names and surnames, PESEL numbers of the management board members, and in the absence of an obligation to have such a number – date of birth, and their addresses for correspondence, as well as the manner of representing the family foundation;
• names and surnames, PESEL numbers of the members of the supervisory board, and in the absence of an obligation to have such a number – date of birth, and their addresses for correspondence, if a supervisory board is established in the family foundation, if a board has been established at all;
• names and surnames, PESEL numbers of beneficiaries who are natural persons who are members of the group of beneficiaries, and in the absence of an obligation to have such a number – date of birth, and their addresses for service, and in the case of the beneficiary being an entity other than a natural person – name or company name and REGON identification number, and if the entity is registered in the National Court Register – also its number in that register;
• name, surname and correspondence address of the founder, if the founder is entitled to appoint the management board;
• duration of the family foundation, if specified.

-The following must be attached to the registration of a family foundation in the register of family foundations:

– the foundation’s founding act or the protocol of opening and announcing the will in which the foundation was established;

-statute

– a declaration by the founder about contributing property to cover the founding fund, and in the case of establishing a family foundation in a will – a declaration by the members of the management board that the founding fund will be contributed within two years from the date of entering the foundation in the register;

– proof of establishment of the foundation’s bodies, specifying their composition, if the composition of the family foundation’s bodies does not result from its statute

– consent to serve as a member of a family foundation body.

The notification is subject to the payment of a fee of PLN 500 in accordance with Article 64 a of the Act of 28 July 2005 on court costs in civil cases ( i.e. Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1228, as amended ).

*Before entry in the register, a company does not have legal personality, so its obligations are the responsibility of the founder or his or her representative. This responsibility ceases upon approval of their actions by a resolution of the management board.

Artykuł What is a family foundation under Polish law? pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

What essentially is GLP?

The problem of regulating diligence clauses in employment contracts in the laboratory industry is essential on the basis of Polish and EU law. These issues shall also consider the general consequences of breaching employee obligations in the form of the so-called Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) principles.

For some time in the business turnover we can observe the practice of including in employment contracts clauses concerning professionalism and professional diligence in the actions of future employees. As a rule, the clause at issue imposes an obligation on the employee to perform their tasks in a professional manner, adequate to their position and in accordance with standard operating procedures. In addition, all actions of the prospective employee must conform to the recommendations and directives of the supervisor and comply with the applicable law.

The laboratory industry is no exception in this area. It imposes an obligation on employees and contractors to act not only diligently but also based on the principles of Good Laboratory Practice. These principles have been in place since 1978 and regulate issues such as quality assurance in drug testing and development, the prevention of pharmaceutical scandals, and ensuring performance standards for laboratory areas. In addition, the principles regulate such key issues as staffing, space requirements and the quality of equipment and inspection processes for laboratory areas.

Polish GLP regulation and the consequences of violating it

On the grounds of domestic legislation, the issue of GLP is regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 3 August 2021 on Good Laboratory Practice and the performance of research in accordance with its scope. Annex I to the Regulation defines the standards of work required of the manager of a research center, the study director or members of the research staff. Attention should be paid to the last two categories, since the work standards specified for them determine the scope of diligence to which the employee may be obligated in a contractual clause. According to section 2(6) of the Annex to the said Regulation, the members of staff should be knowledgeable about the GLP of the specific research being conducted. They are required to act on the basis of the study plan and instructions contained in the documents, and to accurately record data obtained from the studies. Each employee should take care of his/her own safety and that of the environment, and report any deterioration of his/her health to his/her supervisor for the purpose of the possible removal from the study. Additional responsibilities are placed on the study supervisor as the person responsible for coordinating the team. These include, but are not limited to: overseeing the study and ensuring that it is conducted with care and accuracy; including cooperation with quality assurance programme officer, accepting the plan and standard operational procedures, and ensuring that adequate copies of the plan are available for the team to rely on when conducting the study. 

Employee actions are subject to constant scrutiny – any deviation from work standards and failure to follow GLP principles is documented and reported to the study director, according to the Regulation. This may result in various employment law consequences for the employee, such as reprimand, disciplinary responsibility, or even termination of employment contract. The detailed rules of an employee’s liability for a breach of due diligence are always defined in an individual contract constructed for them. It is worth mentioning, however, that omissions of individual employees may negatively influence the outcome of an inspection of the entire testing unit by the Inspector of Chemical Substances – the body appointed to inspect testing units at the national level.

European solutions

The basis of the Regulation of the Polish Minister of Health is to be found in the EU legal acts, which have been implemented into Polish law. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the regulations contained in the acts (created before the regulation) do not differ significantly from those adopted in the Regulation. The first of them, Directive 2004/10/EC of the European Parliament and the UE Council from 11February 2004 in Article 1 imposes on Member States the obligation to ensure that laboratories conducting tests on chemical products act in accordance with the principles of the GLP act and the Directive of 1967 on the classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances (67/548/EEC). Annex I of the 2004 Directive defines GLP as a quality system that relates to the organizational process and conditions under which non-clinical health and environmental safety studies are planned, conducted, monitored, recorded, archived and reported. It has been determined that the purpose of the establishment of the GLP is to take care of the quality and conditions under which non-clinical safety studies for health and the environment are carried out for the registration or authorisation of products such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, veterinary products, industrial chemicals or food additives.

Key issue is the regulation set out in Section II, para. 1.4. of the abovementioned act, which constitutes the duties of research personnel. It imposes on personnel the obligation to know the GLP principles applicable to their participation in study being conducted. It orders the personnel to act on the basis of instructions included in study documents, as well as to maintain health protection measures in order to care for the environment and their own safety. They should also record the raw data swiftly and thoroughly. The duties of the study director set forth in this act are similar to those of the Regulation of the Polish Ministry of Health, namely such a director is responsible for supervising the diligent performance of personnel, approves study programs and instructions, and certifies that qualified personnel, familiar with GLP principles and the study plan undertake their duties.

The issue of control of research units, and consequently – their employees and their compliance with GLP principles, was regulated in Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and the EU Council of 11February 2004. It stipulates that Member States shall appoint national inspection authorities to supervise the operation of entities in accordance with the principles of professional diligence. If irregularities are detected in the implementation of GLP principles in a given unit, and employees show ignorance in the application of its principles, there will entail negative consequences (ranging from questioning the validity of the tests carried out by the unit to its removal or undertaking legal action). These consequences do not preclude additional action by the national authority, based on the specific rules of a given Member State.

It should not come as a surprise that employers in the laboratory sector are striving to enforce the highest possible degree of professionalism, accuracy and attention to professional duties from their employees – the specificity of the described branch requires the highest possible diligence in performing tasks and marginalization of mistakes, which may have serious consequences in the environmental and health dimension. EU and Polish regulations enable employers to effectively implement these obligations in the contract, with individual sanctions for failure to do so.

Artykuł DUE DILIGENCE CLAUSES IN LABORATORY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THEM VS. GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.