In 2021, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal (unconstitutionally composed) dropped a judicial bomb on the primacy of the EU law, a judicial dialogue with the Court of Justice, and a mechanism for providing the rule of law conditions by the Member States. The Tribunal, for the first time in history, recognised Articles 1(1), 2, 4(3) and 19(1) TEU unconstitutional. The text critically unpacks the Tribunal’s reasoning. It provides doctrinal explanations and a broader interpretation of the judgement in the context of the Tribunal’s past case law and the existing Polish debate about the judgment. One of the main arguments is that the current Tribunal is intellec-tually dishonest and abusive regarding constitutional law. It took advantage of recycling the previous constitutional case law, which was not so enthusiastic about the primacy of the EU law. The Tribunal follows strategies of illiberals or abusive constitutional actors, who conceal their real intentions and actions behind the veil of noble values and respected aims.

In the state in which the Slovak Republic functioned until 31 December 2016, there was no legal regulation of interest on VAT refund, which would allow the tax admini-strator to award taxpayers compensation for the retained VAT refund during tax audit. The institution of “compensation for VAT refund retained during tax audit“ (provision of Article 79a) was incorporated into the Act on VAT only with effect from 1 January 2017 under the influence of the decision-making activity of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this area. Based on the analysis of the examined issues in the current decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, the objective of this article is to propose solutions de lege ferenda for the system functioning in the Slovak Republic in connection with the problem of compensation for VAT refund retained during tax audit for the period up to 31 December 2016, as well as to point out other unresolved matters related to the amount of interest and the period for which interest on VAT refund in question is to be calculated in light of the current legislation of European Union in this area.

The article analyses CJEU judgments passed as a result of preliminary rulings and their impact on the judicial decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court. Admini­strative courts are highly committed to and keen on referring preliminary rulings to the CJEU, which is a noteworthy fact. In assessing the implementation of the right legal instruments, the CJEU, by way of its judgments, often grants protection to taxable persons. These judgments have often resulted in legislative changes or changes in the interpretation of legal provisions. In some cases, the previous line of judicial decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court is legitimised and proven as correct.
What deserves particular attention is the CJEU’s existing judicial practice of dealing with tax law abuse cases, which is used by the SAC when examining cases involving tax carousels.

This article is a contribution to the biography of Professor Andrzej Kabat – a prose­cutor, legal counsel, judge of the highest courts of the Republic of Poland, and a long­time academic teacher. The study discusses selected jurisprudential achieve­ments of Professor Andrzej Kabat from the period when he held the office of a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Administrative Court. Moreover, there are also references to his research on the institution of questions of law sub­mitted to the Constitutional Tribunal, which is regarded as pioneering in the science of law, despite the fundamental changes in the political system. What marks the discussed output of Professor Kabat is both the relevance of his ideas and the great significance for the practice of application of the law.

Margin squeezing is an abuse of dominant position, which is not directly mentioned in Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Euro­pean General Court that have recognised this practice as anti­competitive, initially treating it as anti­competitive refusal to supply. Given the many similarities between these practices, there are questions as to whether margin squeeze should be consi­dered an separate manifestation of an abuse of dominant position. The aim of the article is to analyse the position of the European Commission in this regard and juxtapose it with the views contained in relevant judicial decisions, judgements, and rulings, as well as to compare it with the regulations adopted in the United States.

The pandemic has changed the way society functions, affecting the system of justice as well. The need to maintain social distance has accelerated changes in the judi-ciary. Remote hearings have emerged. The article attempts to answer the question of whether the e-hearings currently taking place are held in accordance with the principle of equality in view of the phenomenon of digital exclusion occurring in Polish society. An empirical study of remote hearings conducted by a student research group and the author’s own experience in this field make up the empiri­cal resources documenting the technical issues that occur during remote hearings and problems related to digital exclusion.

This article considers the meaning of trust for judicial communication. The central tenet of this analysis is that trust is best conceptualized as a judicial virtue and that it can be most fully explained with aretaic language. This claim is elaborated through, first, making distinctions between trust and reliance, as well as between trust and trustworthiness. Second, exploring the determinants of trustworthiness leads the author to argue for a virtue account of judicial trustworthiness. Third, the article discusses whether and how trust as a particular attitude or propensity may be perceived as a judicial virtue. The argument concludes by considering the relation between trust in judges and trust in justice institutions, such as courts of law.

Using a surname as a trademark or part of a trademark has been the subject of numerous case-laws and has been widely discussed in the literature. However, it seems that after the Messi case (cases C-449/18 P and C-474/18 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) seems to have departed from their previous approach where it was held that surnames in trademarks should be treated as normal signs. In the Messi case, the CJEU, however, ruled that the reputation of Messi – an internationally famous football player – is so well known that an average consumer, seeing the ‘MESSI’ mark placed on clothing, gymnastic or sporting articles and protective equipment, will establish a link between the mark and the sports personality, despite the similarity between the ‘MESSI’ mark to the ‘MASSI’ brand name, a previously registered trademark. However, this ruling gives rise to the following questions, which this article seeks to address:
- How can one prove that someone’s surname is globally recognised?
- Why did the CJEU decide that Messi is better known than, for instance, Picasso who was the subject of the previous case? Who else can be as famous as Messi if Picasso was held not to be?
- Has Messi changed the CJEU’s approach and opened the floodgates to expand trademark protection for an unlimited number of trademarks?

This article attempts to answer these questions.

The role of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the management of cases and disputes in Nigeria and across the globe cannot be overemphasized. The judicial arm of the government is the arm responsible for interpretation of laws in Nigeria and the judiciary’s role in preserving the rights of citizens across Nigeria also cannot be overemphasized. It ensures that the society is stable in the face of insta-bility and ensures that lawlessness is not maintained. The judiciary ensures that laws made by the legislature are obeyed by ensuring that those who violate the provisions of any established laws are punished. In doing all these, it has been established that the system of administering justice in our courts in Nigeria is extremely slow. Considering the foregoing, alternative dispute resolution as a means of settling disputes has been of tremendous help in easing the hardship of getting cases resolved through the court system. This paper examines ways through which alternative dispute resolution has assisted the Nigerian judicial system and the need to use alternative dispute resolution the more in order to ensure that number of cases handled by courts are drastically reduced. Recommendations are made at the end of the research.

The publication examines the legal nature of wars, looks into the law of war genesis, reviews its conventions, as well as identifies the aim, objectives, causes together with the consequences of Russia’s military aggression on February 24, 2022; it provides a testimony on the war of aggression against Ukraine and identifies its threats to post-war international law and order. The aim of the article is to determine the background, nature, fundamentals and nature of the war the Russian Federation launched on February 24, 2022 against Ukraine within the context of confrontation with the values of Western democracy. Historical-legal dialectical, comparative-legal and system-structural methods, as well as methods of formal logic (induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, abstraction and concretization, etc.) were used to study the issues. The application of these research methods entails a cross-sectoral scientific nature.
Wars have accompanied the entire history of mankind. Since the 17th century the theoretical foundations of the law of war have been laid, which enshrined in international laws and customs of warfare (Geneva Conventions, Hague Convention, etc.) since the 19th century, thus forming the international humanitarian law. After World War II, violations of the latter by the belligerent party are viewed by the world community no less harshly than the mere war. The paper questions the purpose, reasons, conditions and intermediate consequences of the war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Obviously, the military aggression and the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022 marked the beginning of the de facto war, under a specific formal definition by a Russian official as a “special military operation” instead of naming it an attempt to avoid legal responsibility for war crimes committed in Ukraine. The article analyses the aggressive nature of this war on the part of the Russian Federation, demonstrates numerous violations of international law conventions by the Russian armed forces during the military invasion and temporary occupied territories in Ukraine. It emphasizes that the law of war has always been replaced by signing a peace treaty and relevant international agreements, which entails the obligation to severe the political, economic, and legal responsibility of the state violating international humanitarian law. The paper reviews the key institutions and legal tools for bringing the Russian Federation authorities to justice for the war crimes committed in Ukraine. So far, the President of Ukraine, the Supreme Council of Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine have managed to apply legitimate international legal
mechanisms, primarily the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council, to prosecute Russia for violating the international humanitarian law and committing war crimes in Ukraine. At the same time, on the Ukrainian territories currently liberated from the Russian army’s occupation (Bucha, Gostomel, Irpin, etc.), it is already possible to implement a special mechanism of justice, which consists in the collaboration between national and international experts: specialists, investigators, prosecutors, and judges to collect objective and impartial evidence of gross violations of international law and war conventions in Ukraine. It is obvious that for Ukraine today both the victory and just punishment for the committed and continuing committed war crimes on its territory are important. The aftermath of World War II’s “Never Again” now requires, as never before, its effective guarantee and protection

Fixed establishment (FE) is one of the institutions of the EU value added tax system; its structure is essential to correctly determine the right tax jurisdiction of an EU Member State for the purpose of VAT settlement in situations of cross-border provision of services. However, the legal structure of a FE adopted by the EU legislator (and, consequently, adapted to national legislation of the Member States) causes uncertainty when it comes to its interpretation. In the absence of unambiguously defined conditions in EU law to consider a specific presence and activity of an enterprise to be a FE, interpretation rules contained in judicial decisions
issued by the Court of Justice of the EU play an important role. Among attempts
made by the CJEU to clarify the ‘blur areas’ resulting from the dynamics of modern
business processes, one of the most interesting ones is the possibility of considering
a subsidiary to be a fixed establishment for a parent company. The purpose of this
paper is to analyse legal and economic factors, the fulfilment of which may constitute a condition for considering a subsidiary to be a fixed establishment for
a parent company, with particular emphasis on the ruling of the Court of Justice
of 7 May 2020 in the Dong Yang case (C-547/18).

Abstract The question of compensation of Polish citizens for their property left beyond the Bug river after the population exchanges is among the most complex social, economical and legal issues resulting from the World War II to be solved by the Polish State. Although more than 70 years have passed since this issue has arisen, it remains the subject of numerous national and European court rulings and legislative actions; the significance of the legal solution of the described issue is bolstered by the fact that it is being treated as a “proving ground” for the broader question of reprivatisation. This article focuses on the current Act of 8 July 2005 which was aimed at providing a final solution for settling the claims. However, during the last few years of this act in operation numerous questions and disputes have arisen leading to more than 600 administrative court and Constitutional Tribunal rulings. The subject of this article will be focused on current controversies regarding the subject including the requirements of residence on the former territory of Poland on 1 September 1939, exclusion of non- Polish nationals who are heirs to property owners from entitlement to compensation and legal consequences of nationalization by Soviet authorities during World War II and its aftermath.

This article concerns the problem associated with the nature of the institution of a petition for reconsideration of the case in view of regulation No 16 of the Administrative Procedur Code in the version before the amendment dated 3 December 2010, which entered into force on 11 April 2011. Despite the amendment, to this day the provision is the source of many disputes, which is reflected in a very non-uniform judicial practice. On the basis of this regulation can be observed, how defective constructed legal provisions affect the administration of justice and the application of the law by creating situations in which the courts take over the functions of law making. On the selected example is shown, how one decision of the Supreme Court, being the basis of decisions of courts of appeal, causes that victims defective administrative decision are charged with the responsibility for legislative errors. Knowledge of the matter, which is the subject of this publication, is extremely important for all practitioners as well as theorists of the law because of the importance of the issues, which accompany the main theme. The work is based on an analysis of the concept of finality and validity of administration decision and depth on theoretical consideration and extensive discussion of the judicial practice of administrative courts, civil courts and Constitutional Tribunal.

The paper entitled “Counteracting Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion in Selected EU Directives on Direct Taxes” discusses the provisions of Directive 2003/49/EC, Directive 2009/133/EC and Directive 2011/96/EC that are capable of withdrawing the benefits provided under the directives in the case of tax fraud and abuse, tax evasion or tax avoidance. The paper reviews provisions of the directives and also the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning tax fraud and abuse. The jurisprudence of the ECJ plays a key role in setting standards for regulations on the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance adopted by Member States of the European Union. The paper’s centre piece argument is that the solution adopted by the EU legislator, which shifted the burden of preventing tax escape from the EU to Member States, is ineffective and falls short of fulfilling its proper role. The paper emphasises that many tax payers take advantage of the fundamental treaty freedoms and applicable directives to obtain tax benefits or double non-taxation. Limitations imposed by a strict jurisprudential approach of the European Court of Justice also pose a significant barrier to effective tackling the negative phenomenon of aggressive tax planning based on EU laws, the paper suggests. By assessing the effects of the application of the existing regulations and juxtaposing them with the current scale of the problem, the author presents an argument for changing the direction of measures taken to curb international tax avoidance and evasion.

In the judgement C-403/16 Soufiane El Hassani v. Polish Foreign Office European Court of Justice noticed that provisions of internal law cannot limit the right to judical-review established in art. 32 par. 3 of Visa Code. The regulation must be interpreted in context of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Meanwhile the sentence was answer to question of Polish Supreme Administrative Court and it arose under Administrative Courts Proceedings Act which prohibits performing judicial review over visa decisions. The aim of the paper is to explain that judicial review at those issues may be effectively performed by common courts, without damaging visa-applicants rights. The possibility comes from wide definition of civil case in code of civil procedure and attribution of common courts in some public administration cases.

The paper shows an American model of the participation of the society in the administration of justice. It is crucial for the Polish discussion about the involvement of public factor in that manner. The analysis is divided between the constitutional right to trial by jury and the institution of justices of the peace, which is unique for the Anglo-Saxon legal system. Research conducted here is the result of a detailed analysis of the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States and selected state courts that shaped the views of the American academia on this issue. Hopefully, this brief study will help to reform the Polish judicial process.

The aim of the present paper is to operationalise the concept of the political in
order to make it available as an analytical category for the critical study of judicial
decisions (case law). The concept of the political is understood here, following, in
particular, Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic theory, whereby it is a dimension of a social
antagonism. Such an antagonism can be played out not only in the process of
legislation (creation of abstract and general legal norms), but also in the process of
adjudication (the so-called ‘application of law’, which, however, always has a creative
element to it). As an analytical category, the political can be operationalised
in order to subject judicial decisions to a critique which goes beyond the question
of the ‘correct’ interpretation and ‘application’ of law in a given case, but puts in the
spotlight real social, political and economic conflicts that are at stake. The analytical
framework is exemplified by judicial decisions of the European Court of Justice.