Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 22

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  notification
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
EN
The category of a notified body is inherently connected with the system of product conformity assessment. Evaluation of a product compliance with essential requirements constituting the European quality assurance mechanism for non-food products placed on the EU single market for goods is aimed at consumers’ health and safety protection. Moreover, it is to ensure a free movement of products. Notified bodies conduct conformity certification against the relevant requirements of the applicable technical harmonisation directive, hence their crucial role in the conformity assessment system. Notified body accreditation requires organisations to obtain a relevant administrative decision, under consideration of the requirements of Community law. The article presents the authorisation process for the provision of conformity assessment services, as well as the legal instruments which safeguard the rights of bodies applying for the appointment.
EN
According to the international and EU law, as well as national laws of the some states, during environmental decision-making public participation procedure should be carried out. The procedure begins from the notification, which should be implemented in the adequate way. This means that it should consist of the information listed in art. 6 para. 2 points from a to e of the Aarhus Convention. This information can be divided into two groups. The first group is aimed at notification of the public concerned about the planned project (what it is, what its purpose is, which decisions and by which authority can be taken). The second group is directed at the members of public who are interested in participating in this proceeding. Thus, this group of information concerns the subsequent stages of the public participation procedure. This includes the possibilities to examine the relevant documentation, to submit comments and proposals, which will be considered during the decision-making, as well as to be notified about the final decision. The general rule is to provide sufficiently detailed information to facilitate the public participation in the proceedings. The relevant EU and Polish legislation rather correctly implement these requirements.
EN
The author of the opinion claims that the Marshal of the Sejm is unable to grant power of attorney to a Deputy, representing the sponsors of a bill, to represent the government and the Sejm in notification proceedings before the European Commission. Despite the existing restrictions concerning representation, sponsors of a bill may prepare documentation related to notification of the bill for the European Commission. The final decision as to the scope of this documentation and its transfer should, however, be taken by the Marshal of the Sejm.
EN
The article emphasizes that if the amendments submitted by the Deputies during the work of the Subcommittee are introduced to the bill, it should be subject to re-notification. The amendments discussed in the opinion are technical regulations within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC and, therefore, are subject to the procedure referred to in Article. 8 (1) of the Directive.
EN
According to the author, the bill deserves further legislative consideration. Most of the provisions contained therein implement the provisions of the tobacco directive. Some of them impose on manufacturers, importers and distributors of e-cigarettes more far-reaching restrictions than those provided for in the Directive. She points out that the regulations that go beyond the scope of the Directive should be evaluated for compliance with the constitutional principles of freedom of economic activity. Moreover, it should also be considered whether the ban on the use of e-cigarettes in public places violates the constitutionally established right of individuals to make decisions about their own life. Doubts are also raised by the wording of Article 6 para. 1 of the proposed bill imposing a prohibition of making tobacco products, electronic cigarettes and refill containers available to people under the age of 18, whereas the existing prohibitions referred to “sale” of tobacco products.
EN
The opinion concerns the scope of the requirement to notify draft legislation. In an earlier opinion Bureau of Research of the Chancellery of the Sejm (BAS) said that the bill contained technical regulations within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 and is subject to notification to the European Commission. The author indicates the provisions of the draft which must be classified as technical regulations. He claims that, due to the requirement to send to the Commission – in addition to the draft technical regulations – the text of the basic legislative or regulatory provisions principally and directly concerned, it is considered that the entire bill is subject to notification. The notification requirement also covers reasons why the measure is being introduced.
EN
This opinion deals with the relationship between the requirement for suspension of legislative work specified the notification procedure and the determination of the date of entry into force of a government bill amending the Act on the Protection of Health against the Consequences of the Use of Tobacco and Tobacco Products. According to the author, the provisions, which may unambiguously be considered as those implementing Directive 2014/40/EU, can be entered into force and effect on 20 May 2016, because they are exempted from the notification obligation under Directive 2015/1535. In contrast, the provisions of the bill, which implement the provisions of Directive 2014/40/EU, but at the same time leave regulatory discretion to the national legislature, as well as the provisions of the bill that go beyond the objective of implementation of this Directive, should not be adopted before 1 July 2016.
EN
Article 138 of the Bill entrusts Poczta Polska SA with exclusive rights for the provision of a registered electronic delivery service and a public hybrid service. In the author’s opinion, this constitutes a restriction of the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment as defined in the TFEU. Determining whether granting public aid to Poczta Polska requires notification to the European Commission according to Article 108(3) TFEU is not possible on the basis of the Bill itself, which does not constitute an aid program, and depends on the contents of executive acts. Entrusting the operator’s duties in the manner provided for in the Bill will require notification to the European Commission.
EN
In Polish law there is no comprehensive regulation concerning the implementation of the notification obligations under EU law, which is associated with the need to establish rules that would clearly define the jurisdiction of the authorities in matters of notification and clarify the procedure for transfer of the notified document to the addressee. The author presents possible solutions of this problem, according to which the notification of the Act shall be carried out in two separate procedures, identified and described in the article, relating to the notification document concerning measures that go beyond EU harmonization standards and concerning the notification documentation in relation to technical regulations.
EN
This article deals with the issue of admissibility of the review of constitutionality of a statute passed in violation of the EU’s notification procedures. The analysis covers three specific issues — the subject, the base (reference) and the procedure of review exercised by the constitutional court. The subject of the review in a case in which the allegation against the statute is based a breach of EU notification procedures, is determined by the scope of the responsibilities of the Constitutional Tribunal, which means that these procedures can be examined only in a certain range and under reservations. The jurisdiction of Court is therefore limited to the review of fulfillment of the obligation to notify, treated as part of the national legislative proceedings. The review of constitutionality of a statute, to which the allegation of a breach of notification duty has been made, is possible under the so-called procedural review of the statute; in this case the review should be based on the general constitutional norms establishing the principle of the democratic state ruled by law (Article 2) and principle of legalism (Article 7). Due to the need to avoid the conflict between the powers (jurisdiction) of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Court of Justice of the EU, the functional condition of the question of law courts from the courts (Article 193 of the Constitution should be redefined). Adjudication on the so-called EU matters should remain the domain of the national courts, acting on the principles laid down in EU law.
EN
The article provides an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU in matters of notification. The analysis is primarily aimed at identification of the normative sources from which the Court derives its conclusions concerning the legal consequences of a breach of notification rules by the Member States and encompasses three notification procedures relating to norms and technical provisions, state aid and matters falling within the competence of the European Central Bank. Apart from general remarks on the evolution of case law in this area, the author examines: the nature of legal consequences that are associated with a breach of the notification rules; the system context of adjudication (findings concerning the provisions of law directly interpreted by the Court or other EU legal acts taken into account in the process of inference); the scope of legal consequences (including the specification of the rules to violation of which these consequences are attributed) as well as the criteria for their attribution. These findings help to assess the position on the legal consequences of a breach of notification duty by a Member State, which is presented in official EU documents. The author verifies the tendency (apparent from the Guide to consultation of the European Central Bank by national authorities) to attribute uniform legal consequences of violation of the rules defining various notification procedures.
EN
The author of the presented article carried out a thorough interpretation of cann. 55 and 56 CIC. His analyses show that the conditions specified in can. 55 CIC are required in order to make a decree fair but are not necessary to make it valid. The author claims that despite the nature of these requirements one should not treat them disrespectfully in their administrative practice. This is because the written form of a decree guarantees its justice and gives its addressees the right to defense. First and foremost, however, a written record is necessary for evidential purposes. The author believes that a form equivalent to a notification described in can. 56 CIC complements other forms codified in cann. 54 and 55 CIC. It is his opinion that introducing this kind of solutions based on mechanisms of fiction is justifiable since issuing decrees often generates tensions between the parties involved. He understands that the functioning of such solutions ensures the effectiveness of these administrative acts even in specific situations.
EN
This article concerns the notification procedure of technical standards specified in Directive 98/34 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on technical standards and regulations, which provides for information in the field of technical standards and regulations as well as principles of the information society service. The first part of the article explains notions such as ‘technical standards’, ‘technical specification’, ‘other requirements’, ‘service provision principle’, and ‘draft standards’. This is followed by evaluation of the solutions adopted in Polish legal acts implementing Directive 98/34, considered from the point of view of the terms and concepts used in their wording and compliance with the requirements which the Directive has imposed of Member States. Further, the requirement put on Member States to inform the European Commission of each legislative draft concerning technical standards before their final adoption by individual Member States is discussed, and consequences of a failure to do so are presented on the examples of numerous judgments delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, i.e. the Court of Justice and the General Court. The final part of the article deals with technical standards defined in the Act on gambling of 19 November 2009 which, contrary to the requirements of Directive 98/34 EP, have not been notified, and the legal and fiscal consequences of this omission have been thoroughly analysed.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy problematyki procedury notyfikowania przepisów technicznych uregulowanych w Dyrektywie 98/34/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 22 czerwca 1998 r. ustanawiającej procedurę udzielania informacji w dziedzinie norm i przepisów technicznych oraz zasad dotyczących usług społeczeństwa informacyjnego. W pierwszej części opracowania dokonano objaśnienia rozumienia w prawie unijnym takich pojęć, jak: „przepisy techniczne”, „specyfikacja techniczna”, „inne wymagania”, „zasada dotycząca usług” oraz „projekt przepisu technicznego”. Następnie autor dokonuje oceny rozwiązań przyjętych w polskich aktach prawnych wdrażających Dyrektywę 98/34/WE zarówno pod względem użytych pojęć, jak i spełnienia wymogów nałożonych w Dyrektywie 98/34/WE na państwa członkowskie. W opracowaniu omówiono także obowiązki państw członkowskich dotyczące informowania Komisji Europejskiej o każdym projekcie legislacyjnym zawierającym przepisy techniczne przed ich ostatecznym przyjęciem przez właściwe organy danego państwa członkowskiego. Autor dokonuje także oceny skutków prawnych braku dopełnienia tego obowiązku i omawia to zagadnienie, opierając się na licznych przykładach orzeczeń Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej, tj. Trybunału Sprawiedliwości i Sądu (ang. General Court, dawny Sąd Pierwszej Instancji). Końcowa część artykułu dotyczy przepisów technicznych określonych w Ustawie z dnia 19 listopada 2009 r. o grach hazardowych, które nie zostały notyfikowane Komisji zgodnie z dyrektywą 98/34/WE. W tym zakresie szczegółowej analizie poddano skutki prawne i fiskalne braku notyfikacji.
PL
W 2015 r. Sejm uchwalił ustawę o kontroli niektórych inwestycji, która wprowadza specjalny reżim dotyczący nabywania akcji, udziałów, przedsiębiorstwa lub zorganizowanej części przedsiębiorstwa spółek wpisanych jako podmioty podlegające ochronie. Głównym celem regulacji jest wprowadzenie administracyjnoprawnych mechanizmów chroniących spółki o strategicznym znaczeniu dla bezpieczeństwa państwa przed próbami przejęcia przez zagraniczne podmioty. W obecnym kształcie ustawa jest nieprecyzyjna oraz zapewnia właściwym organom bardzo szeroki luz interpretacyjny, tworząc instrumenty, które pozwalają w praktyce na uniemożliwienie dokonania wszelkich transakcji skutkujących osiągnięciem istotnego uczestnictwa lub dominacji w podmiocie podlegającym ochronie. Artykuł zawiera analizę najważniejszych instrumentów uregulowanych ustawą, takich jak zawiadomienie uprzednie i następcze, oraz wskazuje najważniejsze problemy interpretacyjne związane z regulacją. W szczególności omówione zostały kwestie stosowania przepisów dotyczących milczącego załatwiania sprawy do postępowań regulowanych ustawą o kontroli niektórych inwestycji, kwestia charakteru prawnego decyzji administracyjnych wprowadzonych ustawą, kwestia możliwości wydania decyzji aprobującej nabycie istotnego uczestnictwa lub dominacji w podmiocie podlegającym ochronie oraz wybrane zagadnienia związane z zawiadomieniem uprzednim i następczym.
EN
In 2015 the Polish Parliament enacted the Control of Certain Investment Act, which introduces a special legal regime regulating acquisition of shares, enterprise or organized part of an enterprise of companies entered on the list of the protected companies. The main goal of this regulation is to introduce administrative law mechanisms which protect companies of a strategic importance to the national safety against hostile takeovers conducted by foreign entities. However, the Act in the current state is imprecise and gives to the minister competent in the matters of energy a very broad level of interpretation margin through instruments which in practice allow to oppose any transaction resulting in acquisition of a material interest or a dominant position in companies protected under the Act. The article analyses the most important instruments regulated under the Act, such as ex ante and ex post notification and indicates the most material interpretational issues occurring under this regulation. In particular an application on regulations on a tacit approval of a case to proceedings regulated under the Act, the legal nature of the administrative decision under the Act, the possibility to issue a decision accepting the acquisition of a material interest or a dominant position in the protected company, as well as selected issues regarding the ex ante and ex post notifications have been discussed.
EN
The author provides an analysis of the issue who should be competent to the notification of the parliamentarian draft bills. The article examines meaning of the notification in different areas of law, particularly international and European Union law. Apart from general remarks on the meaning of notification in the context of principle of loyalty, the analysis shows the character of this institution in connection with the consequences of a breach of the due notification. The author focuses on three main types of the procedure of the notification: notification of the state aid, notification of the technical standards and regulations and notification of the draft legislative provisions falling within the European Central Bank’s field of competence. The analysis shows that there is no complex regulation in polish system of law according to the notification procedure. Due to the need to avoid the problems associated with the breach of the due notification author presents his view on the issue who should notify the parliamentarian draft bills and puts forward a number of arguments supporting the conception of the significant role of the sponsor of the bill in procedure of notification.
Bezpieczny Bank
|
2020
|
vol. 81
|
issue 4
78-110
EN
This article is the second part of the study, which aims to provide as accurate a description as possible of the public law aspects of transactions for the acquisition of a qualifying portfolio of shares in a domestic bank and to address the practical problems that arise in such transactions. This part of the study will describe the objection institution of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, both in its material and procedural aspects. It also presents the characteristics of supervisory instruments, that can be used by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority to influence the supervised entities in order to secure the effective performance of duties related to the acquisition of qualifying portfolio of shares in a domestic bank. This part of the study also contains summary comments and conclusions. The study uses the method of dogmatic analysis and economic analysis of law. The analysis led to the conclusion that the solution adopted by the Polish legislator is an effective one, which duly protects the interests of the parties to the transaction and, at the same time, the public interest focusing on the proper and safe functioning of the banking market.
PL
Niniejszy artykuł stanowi drugą część opracowania, które poświęcone jest przedstawieniu możliwie dokładnej charakterystyki publicznoprawnych aspektów transakcji nabycia znacznego pakietu akcji banku krajowego oraz rozwiązanie problemów praktycznych, które to problemy pojawiają się przy tego typu transakcjach. W niniejszej drugiej części opracowania zostanie natomiast scharakteryzowana instytucja sprzeciwu Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego, tak w jej ujęciu materialnym, jak i w ujęciu proceduralnym. Przedstawiono także charakterystyką instrumentów nadzoru, z wykorzystaniem których Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego jest uprawniona oddziaływać na nadzorowane podmioty w celu zabezpieczenia efektywnego wykonywania obowiązków związanych z nabywaniem znacznych pakietów akcji banku krajowego. W tej części opracowania sformułowano także uwagi podsumowujące i wnioski. W opracowaniu wykorzystano metodę analizy dogmatycznej oraz analizy ekonomicznej prawa. Przeprowadzona analiza doprowadziła do konkluzji, że przyjęte przez polskiego prawodawcę jest rozwiązaniem efektywnym, które należycie chroni interesy stron transakcji i jednocześnie interes publiczny ogniskujący się w prawidłowym i bezpiecznym funkcjonowaniu rynku bankowego.
EN
The purpose of this publication is to determine the legal effect of the term reserved in Sub-Clause 20.1 of the FIDIC type for making an Engineer’s notification to the Engineer for a claim for an extension of the contract term or any claim granted under these FIDIC type conditions. The lack of a statutory definition of deadlines in the Civil Code of April 23rd, 1964, and other regulations, makes it difficult to define them. As a consequence, such a state of affairs makes it difficult to resolve the doctrine, case-law and construction practice, the dispute as to the effectiveness of shaping the will of parties to contractual deadlines (including the provision of FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.1). Thus the problem is not only theoretical and, most of all, practical. The decision to avoid the bankruptcy of many construction contractors, who are rarely the weakest party to the construction contract, is required to accept the contractual terms imposed by the Investor (such as Sub-Clause 20.1 FIDIC).
Bezpieczny Bank
|
2020
|
vol. 80
|
issue 3
87-117
EN
The aim of this study is to provide a description as accurate as possible of the public law aspects of transactions of the acquisition of a qualifying portfolio of shares in a domestic bank and to solve the practical problems that arise in such transactions. The study will consist of two parts; the first part will provide general observations on the issue of acquisition of a qualifying portfolio of shares in a domestic bank as well as present the rationale for why this institution is subject to supervision of the Financial Supervision Authority, and provide detailed characteristics of the institution of notification. The second part of the study will characterize the institution of objection of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority. The study uses the method of dogmatic analysis and economic analysis of law. The analysis led to the conclusion that the solution adopted by the Polish legislator is an effective one, and one that duly protects the interests of the parties to the transaction and, at the same time, the public interest, focusing on the proper and safe functioning of the banking market.
PL
Celem niniejszego opracowania jest przedstawienie możliwie dokładnej charakterystyki publicznoprawnych aspektów transakcji nabycia znacznego pakietu akcji banku krajowego oraz rozwiązanie problemów praktycznych, które to problemy pojawiają się przy tego typu transakcjach. Opracowanie złożone będzie z dwóch części; w niniejszej pierwszej zostaną przedstawione uwagi ogólne dotyczące kwestii nabywania znacznych pakietów akcji banku krajowego, zostanie przedstawione ratio instytucji poddania tego obszaru nadzorowi Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego oraz zostanie przedstawiona szczegółowa charakterystyka instytucji zawiadomienia. W drugiej części opracowania zostanie natomiast scharakteryzowana instytucja sprzeciwu Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego. W opracowaniu wykorzystano metodę analizy dogmatycznej oraz analizy ekonomicznej prawa. Przeprowadzona analiza doprowadziła do konkluzji, że przyjęte przez polskiego prawodawcę jest rozwiązaniem efektywnym, które należycie chroni interesy stron transakcji i jednocześnie interes publiczny ogniskujący się w prawidłowym i bezpiecznym funkcjonowaniu rynku bankowego.
EN
This article is devoted to the analysis of public law aspects of transactions of acquisition of significant stakes in investment funds managers. The article describes the procedure that is being used by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority to determine whether the purchaser of a significant portfolio of shares gives a guarantee of proper, safe and stable operation of investment fund manager, as well as the issue by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority of the decision expressing or not expressing (objection) consent to the acquisition of a significant portfolio of shares of an investment fund manager. Another element of consideration is the presentation of mechanisms to ensure compliance with the obligations related to the acquisition of significant portfolio of shares, as well as the assessment of the institution itself as regards the supervision of the acquisition of significant blocks of shares of investment fund managers.
PL
Niniejszy artykuł został poświęcony analizie publicz- noprawnych aspektów transakcji nabywania znacznych pakietów akcji towarzystw firm inwestycyjnych. W artykule scharakteryzowano procedurę ustalania przez Komisję Nadzoru Finansowego, czy nabywca znacznego pakietu akcji daje rękojmię prawidłowego, bezpiecznego i stabilnego działania towarzystw funduszy inwestycyjnych, jak również kwestię tak wyrażenia, jak i braku wyrażenia (sprzeciwu) przez Komisję Nadzoru Finansowego zgody na nabycie znacznego pakietu akcji towarzystwa funduszy inwestycyjnych. Elementem rozważania jest także przedstawienie mechanizmów zabezpieczających respektowanie obowiązków związanych z nabywaniem znacznych pakietów akcji, jak i ocena samej instytucji nadzoru nad nabywaniem znacznych pakietów akcji towarzystw funduszy inwestycyjnych.
EN
This article is devoted to the legal analysis of transactions involving the acquisition of significant stakes in investment funds managers that are managing the investment funds. The authors focused on the most important issues from the point of view of the practice of conducting such transactions. The article presents, in particular, the specificity of such transactions, the ratio why such transactions are the subject of supervisions conducted by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, as well as detailed description of the institution of notification of the acquisition of a significant stake in an investment fund managers.
PL
Niniejszy artykuł został poświęcony analizie prawnej transakcji nabywania znacznych pakietów akcji towarzystw firm inwestycyjnych. Autorzy skupili się w jego treści wyłącznie na kwestiach najważniejszych z punktu widzenia praktyki prowadzenia takich transakcji. W artykule przedstawili w szczególności specyfikę takich transakcji, ratio poddania ich przebiegu nadzorowi sprawowanemu przez Komisję Nadzoru Finansowego, jak również szczegółowo scharakteryzowali instytucję zawiadomienia o nabyciu znacznego pakietu akcji towarzystwa funduszy inwestycyjnych.
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.