The Supreme Administrative Court has dismissed the cassation appeal filed in respect of an approval of the construction project and granting of a building permit. This outcome, favourable for the Firm’s client, a real estate development company, upholds the judgement passed by the Provincial Administrative Court and decisions passed by architectural and construction administration bodies and confirms that actions taken by the Firm’s Client were legal. The Supreme Administrative Court accepted the legal interpretation presented by the Firm and the distinction between the notions of the “legal interest” and the “interest of third parties” used in Construction Law, as well as the interpretation of the notions “biologically active surface” and “storey”, both of which bear relevance to numerous real estate development investments. The Court has also confirmed the well-established (as submitted by the Firm) judiciary opinion that the allegation of the breach of art. 10 § 1 of the Administrative Procedure Code by the failure to notify the party of evidence gathering and possibility of making final statements and submitting final applications may be effective only if the alleging party shows that this negligence prohibited it from undertaking actions in legal proceedings which are in causal relationship with the outcome of the case.

File number: II OSK 2181/20

The Wolters Kluwer Poland publishing house has published the two-volume commentary, under the scholastic editorship of the renowned prof. Ryszard Markiewicz, on three interconnected bills concerning intellectual property law – the only publication of this kind on the Polish market. The 3,000-page publication includes commentary to: the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the Law on Database Protection and the Law on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights. Its co-authors, among other prominent scholars, practitioners and specialists in the field of intellectual property law, are the Firm’s Partners: attorney-at-law Anna-Maria Niżankowska-Horodecka, UJ PhD (commentary on the Law on Copyright and Related Rights – Volume I) and attorney-at-law Sergiusz Szuster, UJ PhD (commentary on the Law on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights – Volume II).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) delivered a judgement in the case concerning the legal interpretation of the concept of ‘discrimination’ under Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC, after the court’s proceedings before the Grand Chamber and after the positive opinion handed down the advocate general Giovanni Petruzelli, which opined – in line with the Firm’s position in the case – that the principle of equal treatment in the European Union law (“EU Law”) is intended to efficiently and effectively protect workers who have a disability against any discrimination on the basis of such disability – not only compared to workers who do not have disabilities but also compared to other workers with disabilities. The CJEU’s ruling is hugely important not only for the Firm’s Client but also for other cases concerning anti-discrimination law. The CJEU’s judgement further indicates that the principle of equal treatment may be also applied in cases of differentiation within a distinct group of workers with protected personal characteristics. The CJEU’s judgement will have an impact on the legal interpretation and application of EU law in all EU Member States.

File number:  C 16/19

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by the parent company of one of the biggest group company holdings in Poland (the “opponent”), in the case in which the opponent demanded payment of the amount in excess of 130,000,000 PLN from the Firm’s Client. The Firm had represented the Client throughout the proceeding, starting at the the first instance before the District Court, which dismissed the claim, through the second instance in which the Appellate Court dismissed the opponent’s appeal and ultimately in the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the Firm’s Client. The case raised numerous complex issues concerning civil law and company law, such as the requirements for a lawful constitution of a contract, the fictitiousness of the contract or contractual interpretation in respect of the provisions relating to virtual shares (also known as phantom shares). The case also raised important legislative interpretation matters, such us a clarification of art. 378 of the Code of Commercial Companies in terms its implied application to contracts concerning the obligation on joint-stock companies/public limited companies to disburse the monetary benefit to the member of its board of directors, as well as the question of the potential application of art. 17 of the Code of Commercial Companies in cases lacking the resolution indicated in art. 378 of the Code of Commercial Companies.

File number: III CSKP 148/21