In recent years, it has been a relatively common practice for the Polish antitrust authority – the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (the OCCP) – to issue conditional decisions in merger control proceedings. Actually, this is not a practice known only to the Polish antitrust authority, as such decisions are also issued by the European Commission. Consents granted following this procedure allow participants to a planned concentration (also referred to as merger) to proceed, but under certain conditions – behavioural or structural. Several important issues arise especially with regard to the latter type of conditions, particularly in terms of the permissible degree of interference in the sphere of private legal rights and obligations of one or both participants in the concentration, and the consequences of failure to comply with the condition under which the concentration has been approved. These issues are the subject of this paper, which ends with conclusions and implications regarding the judicial practice of the Polish antitrust authority in the area in question.

It is quite paradoxical that such a negative social phenomenon as the ever-present threat of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its mutations has contributed to the exceptional acceleration of the widespread adoption of the institution of remote hearings in the area of civil trials in our country. Traditional hearings are no longer the only possible format of public hearing in the form of a trial. We are now witnessing a new quality in the way in which civil cases are heard. Most importantly, the nature of the court’s communication with the parties and other participants of such proceedings has changed significantly in the broad sense due to the remote nature of the hearings. At present, the venue where a court gets to hear the parties to proceedings is not only the courtroom in a court building, but also cyberspace. Thus, the landscape and the structure of civil trials have changed considerably.

It is quite paradoxical that such a negative social phenomenon as the ever-present threat of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its mutations has contributed to the exceptional acceleration of the widespread adoption of the institution of remote hearings in the area of civil trials in our country. Traditional hearings are no longer the only possible format of public hearing in the form of a trial. We are now witnessing a new quality in the way in which civil cases are heard. Most importantly, the nature of the court’s communication with the parties and other participants of such proceedings has changed significantly in the broad sense due to the remote nature of the hearings. At present, the venue where a court gets to hear the parties to proceedings is not only the courtroom in a court building, but also cyberspace. Thus, the landscape and the structure of civil trials have changed considerably.

The paper discusses the procedure before the guardianship court regarding granting so-called surrogate approval of providing a healthcare service, particularly vaccination against COVID-19, to persons who are unable to make a conscious decision in this regard for objective reasons – health or age. The currently applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Act on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Professions were analysed. Due to lack of any separate procedural regulation of procedure in this regard, special attention was paid to the right court representation of the person whom the approval concerns and to the issue of gathering and assessing evidence. The authors’ goal was in particular to evaluate legal loopholes noticed in practice and to indicate possible practical and procedural solutions, which is specifically essential in the current epidemiological situation, as nowadays these types of proceedings constitute a significant percentage of cases examined by courts.

Since 7th November 2019 most provisions of The Act of 4th July 2019 on Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and on Amendments to the Other Acts have been applied. Among many revolutionary changes to the rules on conducting trial proceedings, worth noticing is the content of the Code of Civil Procedure Art. 2711. It concerns the admissibility of evidence that differs from traditional oral form. This paper discusses the practical problems in admissibility and examination of evidence from witness testimony in written form. The issues summoning of the witness, forms, cautions and list of questions that are demanded to be answered in a witness statement are also addressed here. Furthermore, there are proposals of practical arrangements, so this new provision would be applied by court, therefore it would contribute to the efficiency of judicial procedures. This article published in January 2020 is considered to be the preliminary proposal to academic and practical discussion about legitimacy of implementation of described solution and its effective use.

The forms of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures were developed in the 1960s in the United States. The ADR is based on conciliation of the parties rather than judgement. This is possible through ensuring of broad participation of the parties in the dispute resolution. The ADR has as its objective the replacement of the adjudication process by forms of arbitration, contract, mediation and conciliation. The goal is to reach
a compromise. The basic division of the ADR is into the basic and the mixed (hybrid) forms. The basic ones include mediation, negotiations and arbitration. The hybrid forms include, for example, conciliation, fact finding, mini-trial. The ADR tools are successfully used for solving disputes in civil law, labour law, and administrative law and even in criminal cases. American agencies also apply ADR procedure called reg-neg to work out the content of legal regulations between officials and representatives of the parties concerned. ADR forms are also used in appeal proceedings. Despite unquestionable advantages of the ADR methods, there are critics who blame them for lowering the standard of the judiciary. There is no doubt that the application of ADR results in de-formalisation and simplification of the court proceedings and often in delegating the position of a negotiator or mediator to people without a legal background. However, this should not overshadow the greatest asset of the ADR, namely, the achievement of permanent agreements satisfactory for both parties.

Evidencing in medical trials for damages is difficult, and it requires not only knowledge in the field of law, but also in the field of medicine. The main impediment to fluent proceeding in medical matters which requires to be strongly emphasised is a vast difficulty for courts in taking evidence by an expert within reasonable time. Such evidence is generally necessary in every case because there is a necessity to learn medical facts from the perspective of specialist knowledge (Article 278 § 1 of CPC). The problematic nature of damages for so called medical errors has gained more and ore significance, both because of the growing number of claims and the damages paid in relation thereto and the rising costs of insurance against those events incurred by healthcare centers. In such legal circumstances, it is worth indicating the extent to which the evidence by an expert doctor is taken in medical proceedings and the significance thereof for a proper course of the proceedings. Nevertheless, frequently opinions by experts are rather far from being objective. Often, as a result of falsely interpreted solidarity of representatives of the profession, experts disregard the lack of knowledge and diligence of a doctor and the organisational omissions in health care centers. Their opinions are very often unclear ambiguous, posing different hypotheses and the possibilities of damage which do not assist the court in properly assessing the events in matters for compensation. Because of that, a higher standard of conduct for expert doctors should be considered, the manner in which they are appointed and an improvement of the effectiveness of their work

The Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in class actions regulating court proceedings in cases which involve claims of at least 10 people, is a kind of novelty in Polish law. Undoubtedly, it is a legal act improving and modernizing Polish civil proceedings. However, one should pay attention to new developments and the lack of their clarification, and therefore to the importance of already issued judgments of the Supreme Court. For this reason, existing jurisdiction on this subject has been presented and analyzed, which allows to precise the subjective scope, the term and extent of the unification of claims, as well as the concept and requirement of a representative of the collective. Without any doubts, the practice, which starts to shape, as indicated on the example of jurisdiction, will allow to clarify the scope of the subject and object of the Act. The ability to limit the claims for liability of the defendant has, without any doubts, a very important role in functioning of the class action, because the unification of pecuniary claims is in practice very difficult. Past court decisions show that unification should be understood as occurrence of a members’ request for the generically same forms of protection. Many practical problems are also raised by the concept of the representative of the collective, and the way, in which the collective should choose one.

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.