A power of attorney enables participants in proceedings to authorise other persons, in particular persons with a professional background, to represent them before the court, which undoubtedly speeds up and streamlines the entire proceedings. In Poland, it is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to art. 89, a document of the power of attorney, with the principal’s signature or a certified copy thereof, shall be attached to the case files at the first procedural action (first pleading). However, after the commencement of the proceedings, it may also be granted orally at a court session by making a statement and enclosing it to the transcript of the hearing. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure governing the content of the power of attorney document. However, it is assumed, that the document should specify the person of the proxy and the principal, as well as its subject matter – whether it is a general, or to conduct particular cases or to perform certain procedural actions. Particularly controversial is the fact that the Polish Code does not impose an obligation to indicate the place or date of preparation of the power of attorney document. In practice, however, it is assumed, that the date of issuance of the document should be indicated.
On 18 June 2021, the EDPB adopted internal document No. 04/2021 on the criteria for the territorial competence of supervisory authorities for the enforcement of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive.
Problem of territorial application
In view of recent decisions adopted by some SAs that are competent to enforce Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive[1], the EDPB has issued an Opinion aimed at establishing a uniform interpretation regulations of the territorial jurisdiction of SAs responsible for the enforcement of Article 5(3). Decisions adopted by SAs have shown that the territorial scope of application of the Directive may vary between different SAs, particularly where the controller/service provider is established in several Member States. Uncertainties on this issue could jeopardize decisions adopted by SAs across the Union.
On 22 February 2022 KIELTYKA KG LEGAL will take place in the Future of Beauty Festival as a part of Wall Street Journal Festival of Everything. The participants of the event will learn about the latest innovations shaping the future of beauty, from cosmetic industry giants harnessing the power of data analytics and artificial intelligence, to wellness technologies prompting consumers to take a more expansive view of beauty that includes mindfulness, nutrition and lifestyle choices. The speakers will also focus on the impact of the pandemic on these trends. The speakers will include Katie Sturino, Founder, Megababe, The Future of Beauty; Ellie Austin, News Editor, Live Journalism, The Wall Street Journal; Sara Castellanos, News Editor, Live Journalism, The Wall Street Journal Future of Beauty
Pyramid promotional schemes involve consumers being persuaded to participate in a “project” in exchange for the promise of remuneration or other benefits, which depend primarily on bringing more people into the scheme rather than on the sale or consumption of products. Such schemes most often offer investments in tokens, cryptocurrencies, educational or language packages, apartments, etc.
The scheme of operation of a pyramid scheme is basically as follows: you put money into a supposed investment, you refer other people, and you get paid for introducing them. Your money is not actually invested, it is used to compensate the people who brought you into the system. At the same time, your compensation comes from the contributions of people you have directly and indirectly referred. In this way, it is you, your friends and your friends of friends who are funding a system that is not really investing anything. Therefore, after a period of time, the system has to fail because the money paid in is not invested in any assets and does not make a profit. The money goes to the organizers and the highest position in the chain. The system works as long as the number of people joining and contributing money increases exponentially, which is not sustainable. As a result, the system collapses and the money invested is lost.
Costs from related parties will not be allowed as tax costs. This will happen when these costs meet the statutory definition of the so-called “hidden dividend”. The Polish New Deal introduces so far unknown concept of “hidden dividend”. The act in art.16 sec. 1d indicates that certain costs constitute a “hidden dividend” if:
the amount or timing of those costs is in any way dependent on the taxpayer making a profit or on the amount of that profit; or
a prudent taxable person would not incur such costs or could incur lower costs in the case of comparable supplies performed by a person not connected, within the meaning of Article 11a(1)(3), with the taxable person, whereby in determining those costs the provisions of Articles 11c and 11d shall apply mutatis mutandis, or
these costs include remuneration for the right to use assets which were owned or co-owned by a partner (shareholder) or an entity related to a partner (shareholder) before the creation of the taxpayer.
The provisions being introduced aim to end the practice of extracting profits from companies. However, if an entity makes a gross profit and the costs associated with transactions with related parties do not exceed its value, the provisions will not apply.
