The regulations introduced by the Act of November 4, 2022 amending the Act on the National Court Register, the Act on the Code of Civil Procedure and the Act on the Code of Commercial Companies constitute the first stage of implementation of Directive 2019/1151 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) of June 20, 2019. These regulations are primarily intended to facilitate the functioning of entrepreneurs in the sphere of economic turnover. Despite the broad scope of the regulations of the so-called „company law package” in Directive 2019/1151, it should be recognized that the implementation law itself is not revolutionary. This is due to the fact that most of the regulations contained therein are already successfully applicable in Poland, while the changes introduced are primarily aimed at organizing the Polish legal system and facilitating access to information about entrepreneurs. The purpose of this article is to present the statutory changes consisting in the implementation into the Polish legal order of the regulations included in the so-called „package of company law” and the scope of implementation, as well as an attempt to assess the rationale for their introduction

The European Union and its Member States are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to enhance border controls. This is one of the manifestations of a broader trend of moving towards the so-called smart borders of the Union. This article presents EU initiatives on the development and implementation AI-based digital technologies to improve the control and security of the Union’s external borders. The main directions of the use of AI were analyzed, i.e. in the field of automatic recognition of fingerprints and faces, emotion detection, algorithmic profiling and monitoring, analysis and forecasting of migration. The aim of the article is, on the one hand, to show that the careful implementation and use of AI-based technology for border control can bring many benefits. On the other hand, however, these benefits must be balanced with the significant threat posed by these technologies to the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual.

These standards were introduced at four international organizations and supranational associations: 1) the European Union; 2) the Council of Europe; 3) the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 4) the Commonwealth of Independent States. The article states that the key reason for the introduction of standards for the regulation of lobbying at the international level was considerable corruption in the adoption of legal acts. It is concluded that latent and unregulated lobbying can seriously undermine public confidence in the institution of government, especially in the countries of the so-called “new democracy”. International regulation of lobbying takes the form of resolutions, procedural rules, guidelines, recommendations and model legislation. Notably, the first steps towards international regulation of lobbying were taken by the institutions of the European Union. Today EU standards for the regulation of lobbying is based on a series of articles set out in the EU-founding treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. EU standards for the regulation of lobbying influence not only the EU Member States, but it also extends to EU Partner Countries. Significant steps in the implementation of international standards for the regulation of lobbying are being constantly carried out by the Council of Europe. The establishment of CE standards for the regulation of lobbying is reflected in the activity of statutory bodies of the Council of Europe and its semi-autonomous bodies. In recent years a lot of work on the strengthening of international standards for lobbying regulation has been done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. To help address the concerns with transparency and integrity in lobbying, the OECD Member Countries adopted in 2010 a Recommendation on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying as guidance to decision-makers on how to promote good governance in lobbying. Another international organization, which began to regulate actively the practice of lobbying is the Commonwealth of Independent States. In order to intensify the work concerning legislative regulation of lobbying in the member countries of the CIS, at the XXII Plenary Session of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS member states the Resolution No. 22-16 of November 15, 2003 was adopted, which approved a model law “On regulation of lobbying activity in state authorities”.

The study is an attempt to present the situation of Poland and Lithuania after their accession to the European Union, and of the evolution of social assessment of the membership in the Union by Poles. A particularly important moment is the transition from looking at the EU from the point of view of the material benefits associated with the accession to looking at the European Community as a community of values, one that guarantees European solidarity and equal opportunities, also in the material sphere. The authors consider whether the national (and nationalist) sentiments, along with demanding attitudes in Poland towards the states of “the old union” constitute a threat to the adoption of common values and the role of Poland in the European community.

The article focuses on the normative, institutional, and operational design of the European Union as an area where a considerable part of internal security is based on state-of-the-art technologies and large-scale information systems. This is followed by an analysis of the legal challenges arising from the establishment of so-called smart borders, i.e. borders involving automated border control and the interoperability of all large-scale information systems.
The article poses two fundamental research questions. Firstly: how do these new phenomena affect the effectiveness of management of the external borders in the EU? Secondly: are the existing legal frameworks able to bear the changes that are occurring? It seems that the aspiration towards interoperability may cause tensions underlying the establishment and functioning of the area of freedom, security, and justice (AFSA) in the EU – if the EU’s information systems become more and more interoperable, then the EU legal order may become less and less consistent with them.

A review of solutions which serve the taxation of the digital economy allows for the statement of a thesis that there are many methods which could tax business activity based on digital technologies. One should remember, however, that there also must be consensus and political will in order to introduce them. Due to the lack of consensus at the global level, on 21 March 2018, the European Commission presented two draft directives which were to ensure the taxation of enterprises conducting business in the European Union in the area of digital economy: the Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence and the Directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services. The drafts of the Directives presented by the Commission are the beginning of the legislative work at the Union level. One should ask the question whether the European Union needs its own solutions regarding the taxation of the digital economy. In this paper,
the author attempts to evaluate whether the target solution proposed by the Commission, that is, the taxation of a significant digital presence, i.e. a digital establishment,
can be an effective tool for the taxation of the digital economy in the European
Union. For this purpose, subsequent references were made to selected opinions
of international doctrine, OECD regulations and the draft of the Directive.

As a result of a reform implemented in 2017, the National Revenue Administration was established in place of the existing tax administration, tax inspection, and the Customs Service. The tax administration was consolidated this way. Although the efficiency of collecting VAT, excise tax and fuel duty increased, there are still areas which require an analysis of the definition, statistical and legal scope, and an increase in the efficiency of enforcing compliance with both the European Union’s regulations on customs and tax and the Polish ones. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the functioning of regulations which have been applicable since 1 March 2017 and which concern customs and tax inspection of the assessment and collection of charges, which are related the import and export of goods onto the customs territory of the European Union, by the new authorities.

Niniejszy artykuł ma za zadanie ukazać podobieństwo pomiędzy rozumowaniami wypracowanymi odnośnie swobód traktatowych a ujęciem zasad prawa zaproponowanym przez R. Alexego. Swobody traktatowe z traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej, wypracowane w toku wieloletniej działalności orzeczniczej Trybunału, posiadają szereg podobieństw do koncepcji zasad prawa zaproponowanej przez prof. Roberta Alexego. Świadczą o tym – pozycja zasad prawa w systemie prawa, możliwość stopniowalności ich wykonywania czy też odrębna metoda wychodzenia z konfliktu dwóch przeciwstawnych zasad prawa. Artykuł analizuje wybrane swobody traktatowe w odniesieniu do materii podatkowej oraz porównuje je ze schematami teoretycznymi, które zaproponował prof. Robert Alexy.

Debaty o Unii Europejskiej, jej modelu i funkcjonowaniu, charakteryzują się uproszczeniami, a w wielu przypadkach przesiąknięte są ideologią lub niewiedzą. W europejskiej – w tym polskiej – dyskusji pojawia się też często wąsko rozumiany interes narodowy, a strony żonglują emocjami i lękami, które przesłaniają niedostatki rzeczowej informacji. Kontrowersje między Unią Europejską a Polską, które pojawiły się na tle oceny stanu praworządności czy też problemu relokacji uchodźców dowodzą, że przedmiotem sporu staje się w pewnym stopniu model integracji oraz jej podstawowe pojęcia prawne. Należy się zastanowić, na czym polega specyficzny prawnie charakter UE? Dlaczego zgodziliśmy się powierzyć jej kompetencje do wykonywania władzy publicznej? Czy Unia ogranicza suwerenność Polski? Czy w Unii możliwa jest demokracja? Mimo krytyki Unia pozostaje sprawnym mechanizmem zarządzającym współzależnością państw członkowskich. Parafrazując Marka Twaina: Doniesienia o jej zgonie wydają się przesadzone.