The purpose of this paper is to attempt an evaluation of the legal regulations relating to the issue of monitoring in the workplace. The Author defines sources of the employer’s right to control the employee and analyses the limits of this right. Finally, the Author states some provisions of conducting monitoring in the workplace.

A large number of opinions have been expressed about the decision C-131/12. Initially, Google’s defeat has been widely welcomed as the giant had suffered a bitter defeat. After a first joy about the containment of Google’s arrogance it became clear that the excessive claim for right to be forgotten will dry out our sources of information. Can privacy be seen as a fear for diversity of opinion? It may be due to the tension between data and reputation protection on the one hand and the possibility to protect against lies and fraud on the other hand. It is not just Google’s freedom of expression, which is in the centre of our interests. We want to find informations and Google is helping us in this regard. Forcing Google to suppress the information flow can not hinder Google to earn money. If we go through the opinion of the Advocate General and compare it with the reasoning of
the ECJ, then we come to the conclusion, that the ECJ had to decide in this a way on the grounds of the current legal status. The ECJ was standing with the back to the wall, because it has to apply the current law and this left no option open. Thus, the ECJ could not follow the opinion of the Advocate General. In the following I will shortly summarize the Spanish Data Protection Authority (SDPA) decision, before moving to the Advocate General opinion and the judgment of the ECJ and finally provide an outlook on possible
future development in this regard.

This paper presents an analysis of legal issues related to the use of a blockchain in business. Considering the legal aspects at as early a stage as possible is one of the key areas which are crucial for the success and timely realisation of a project. The scope of legal issues depends on the type of the decentralised solution chosen by the organisation. The authors explain the differences between an open blockchain and a closed one, noting the degree of control and the advantages of both solutions. When it comes to the following paragraphs of the paper, the meaning of jurisdiction selection and the manner of managing personal data in projects related to the use of blockchain are discussed. The authors explain what smart contracts are to the reader. They point out sector regulations which may have an influence on the carrying out of blockchain projects in individual sectors that are regulated. They analyse the issues of the cryptocurrency market and explain to the readers why the taxation of cryptocurrencies is controversial. In the final part, they signal that organisations planning to implement a blockchain-based solution should take the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations and related issues concerning Know Your Customer (KYC) into consideration. The paper makes it possible to understand why the legal regulations discussed may turn out to be an essential project risk if they are not recognised in time, and how addressing legal issues smoothly helps in the transformation of a project at the Proof of Concept stage, into a solution that works productively.

The study discusses the principles of awarding benefits under the Company Social Benefits Fund (original Polish name: Zakładowy Fundusz Świadczeń Społecznych) from the point of view of legitimacy of the processing of personal data. The con-ducted analysis covers the present legal framework in force in Poland, taking the European Union law – GDPR – into consideration. Given the local specificity of the institution in question, the article does not include references to regulations adopted in other countries. The article proposes two theses. One is that the award-ing of benefits under the CSBF with the participation of representatives of the stakeholder community, especially in the area of hardship benefits, should be based on anonymised applications. Documents proving the circumstances acting as the grounds to apply for a benefit to be true should be verified by an employer’s authorised representative in charge of employee welfare initiatives. The other thesis is that copies of documents proving the legitimacy of application for a social benefit, especially in the area of hardship benefits, should be kept by the data controller – meaning the employer – for a period during which Polish tax authori-ties and Social
Insurance Institution (ZUS) may verify the legitimacy of application of the impost law. In this case, this refers to the practice of non-payment of the tax on the awarded benefits and the social insurance contributions. The conclusions the said theses lead to are significant to the practical application of law, and because they are controversial, they may pave the way for a further academic discourse.

Social labour inspectorate, as a special form of unionised representation of employees’ interests, has the right to control employers in the field of their compliance with the provisions of the labour law in place. Exercising this controlling function involves the need for a social labour inspector to access the information and docu-ments that may contain personal data of employees. The study advances a thesis that a social labour inspector is an entity processing personal data of employees on behalf of a company trade union organisation – who is the controller of these data, and the grounds for the processing of personal data of employees are the relevant provisions of the GDPR. The theses proposed in the study aim to challenge the Constitutional Tribunal’s standpoint regarding a social labour inspector’s right to obtain personal data. The problems addressed in the study have not been a sub-ject of the existing views of legal academics and commentators, nor have they been covered in the established line of judicial decisions yet.

In addition to search engines, social networks represent an important digital service for many Internet users. Social network services such as Facebook, Xing, or Twitter provide vital platforms for communication and sharing of content as part of a modern, user-friendly Internet. Public criticism of social networks is expressed in particular with regard to processing of personal data. These play a central role in business models of many social networks, with regard to their use e.g. for advertising purposes. A question is, if it can be assumed that market-dominant providers, due to a lock-in effect, can demand a wide-ranging consent for the collection and use of personal data that would be expected in a functioning competition? In the following, social networks, potential competition issues and possible legislative measures due to concentration tendencies in connection with access to user data in the area of social networks will be discussed.

This paper presents an analysis of legal issues related to the use of a blockchain in business. Considering the legal aspects at as early a stage as possible is one of the key areas which are crucial for the success and timely realisation of a project. The scope of legal issues depends on the type of the decentralised solution chosen by the organisation. The authors explain the differences between an open blockchain and a closed one, noting the degree of control and the advantages of both solutions. When it comes to the following paragraphs of the paper, the meaning of jurisdiction selection and the manner of managing personal data in projects related to the use of blockchain are discussed.
The authors explain what smart contracts are to the reader. They point out sector regulations which may have an influence on the carrying out of blockchain projects in individual sectors that are regulated. They analyse the issues of the cryptocurrency market and explain to the readers why the taxation of cryptocurrencies is controversial. In the final part, they signal that organisations planning to implement a blockchain-based solution should take the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations and related issues concerning Know Your Customer (KYC) into consideration. The paper makes it possible to understand why the legal regulations discussed may turn out to be an essential project risk if they are not recognised in time, and how addressing legal issues smoothly helps in the transformation of a project at the Proof of Concept stage, into a solution that works productively.

MFN clauses are often applied on platform markets, through which the seller is obliged to offer its products on a platform under the best conditions. From the competition law perspective these clauses are controversial. In the past, courts have classified such clauses as restrictive vertical agreements which abused dominant position on the relevant market. Based on such decisions, the following articlehighlights the competitive economic impact as well as the competitive admissibility of these clauses.