Upon the application of Ceneo, the Polish Regional Court in Warsaw banned the Google search engine from favoring its own price comparison website in search results.
The court’s decision applies to the results displayed to users of the Google search engine in Poland. It was issued as security for Ceneo’s claims to refrain from acts of unfair competition before filing a lawsuit against Google.
Ceneo – a comparison website owned by the Allegro Group, the owner of the e-commerce platform – in its application for granting interim security measure (reference number of the case: XXII GWO 24/24) pointed to four types of Google practices that limit their access to the market. The first is favoring one’s own comparison website (Google Shopping) at the expense of competing services (so-called self-preference), done through the way search results are presented. The second – redirecting traffic to Google Shopping at the expense of Ceneo, and the third – hindering access to the Polish comparison website by deleting search results leading to it.
Central Register of Debtors and Insolvencies in Poland – implementation of Regulation 2015/848
The deadline for the implementation of the duty by Poland for the purposes of e-Justice system of the obligations under the Regulation 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings was in principle the year 2018. Currently there functions the centralized Register of Debtors, but the register is still not fully functionable. The specific Act of law that implemented the provisions of the Regulation is the Act of December 6, 2018 on the National Register of Debtors (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1909, as amended).
In this presentation prepared for the American Bar Association Joint Committee Meeting of TIPS (Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice) Medicine & Law International Section International Life Sciences and Health, and Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management we are going to focus on three aspects. First – case study of medical device litigation; secondly – we are going to discuss the legislative landscape of data legislation in European Union and as third part, we are going to discuss the most crucial assumptions implemented by the of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16th April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, with a particular emphasis on the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS).
Obtaining information about the account and payment of the contribution in the event of the bank account holder’s death is often a considerable problem for heirs or administrators of the estate. Problems are caused not only by procedural requirements, but often also by banks themselves, which have little to gain from fulfilling their obligations towards authorized persons, but a lot to lose. From the economic point of view – financial resources which – although given to the bank under a repayable title – constitute the basis of its lending activities, from the legal point of view – venturing into the thicket of inheritance regulations and in many cases – the circle of heirs is difficult to determine, and it is easy to stumble, and thus, there are also problems with banking supervision. Therefore, banks are very reluctant to perform their duties, often multiplying problems and procedural requirements. It is therefore worth knowing when the bank should and when it cannot provide information about the account or withdraw funds from it.
Polish judicial protection tools for the sale of real estate in international bankruptcy – case study and suggested solutions
In the Polish legal system, it is possible to extend bankruptcy declared abroad to Polish jurisdiction. In accordance with the amendment to the Polish Bankruptcy Law, which came into force on January 1, 2016, the provisions of the Act update the possibility of recognizing judgments initiating foreign bankruptcy proceedings. This is related, among other things, to increased emphasis on the universality of bankruptcy proceedings, especially in European Union countries. Pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council, “a judgment opening insolvency proceedings issued by a court of a Member State having jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 3 shall be recognized in all other Member States (…).” The phrase “having jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 3” – art. 3 of the Regulation reads: “1. The courts of the Member State in whose territory the debtor’s center of main interests is situated have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings – the main insolvency proceedings. The main bankruptcy proceedings are considered to be proceedings initiated in the country where the principal center of the debtor’s main activities is located (Article 3(1) of the Regulation)[1].
