Correction. The article presents the existing legal position too narrowly by stating that a municipality may charge fees “only” for burial of a body and for reserving a grave for a further 20 years. The catalogue of statutorily permitted fees is not closed at those two items: the Cemeteries Act and related regulations also permit other fees, including a fee for storing a body after the expiry of the free-of-charge period (by analogy with Article 28(6) of the Medical Activity Act, which permits charging the municipality a fee for storing a patient’s body for the period after three days have elapsed). It would therefore have been more precise to write that what is disputed in the case law is the permissibility of operating and technical fees (entry by a stonemason, use of a chapel, reservation of land), not that the Act recognises only two fees. Moreover, the article omits the fact that draft UD309 is not yet an act, nor even a bill submitted to the Sejm: describing the “new provisions” as being in force would be premature, and the change requires adoption by the Council of Ministers and enactment through the parliamentary procedure.
Municipalities which, in recent years, prevailed in proceedings before provincial administrative courts only where their price lists were limited to the fee for burial and reservation of a grave for 20 years are to regain the freedom to adopt a full cemetery price list. The reason is draft UD309, prepared by the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, which is intended to introduce into the Act on Cemeteries and Burial of the Deceased a direct reference to municipal management. The issue is a specific question of competence: whether a municipal council may, by resolution, set prices and fees for the use of public utility facilities and equipment at a municipal cemetery, or only those fees that follow directly from the statutory delegation connected with burial of human remains. The proposed Article 2a of the Act on Cemeteries and Burial of the Deceased is intended to resolve this by referring to Article 4(1)(2) of the Act on Municipal Management, confirming that the municipal council’s competence covers the entire catalogue of fees, including for infrastructure, technical services and the provision of facilities.
The current legal position is determined by the provisions of the consolidated text of the Act on Cemeteries and Burial of the Deceased (notice of the Marshal of the Sejm of 7 November 2025): pursuant to Article 1(1) and (2), the establishment and expansion of municipal cemeteries fall within the municipality’s own tasks and are decided by the municipal council after obtaining the consent of the sanitary inspector, while Article 2(1) entrusts the maintenance and management of municipal cemeteries to commune heads, mayors and city presidents. None of these provisions, however, contains a delegation to set operational or technical fees, and it is precisely this gap that provincial administrative courts have filled rigorously by annulling price lists that went beyond burial fees. The legislative model for the proposed amendment is the mechanism known from the Act on Maintaining Cleanliness and Order in Municipalities, under which the municipal council, by resolution constituting an act of local law, determines the methods and rates of fees (Article 6k(1)), while the fee constitutes municipal revenue allocated to cover the costs of the system (Article 6r(1) and (2)). Draft UD309 is at the stage of interministerial governmental consultations; until it enters into force, courts will continue to apply the existing narrow interpretation of municipal councils’ competence.
If the draft passes through the Council of Ministers and Parliament, municipalities will regain the ability lawfully to charge fees for stonemasons’ vehicle entry, use of a chapel, reservation of land and operational services, and the risk of mass refunds of unduly collected amounts will decrease. For stonemasonry and funeral businesses, this means the formal legal recognition of fixed technical fees for work carried out on municipal cemetery grounds, with the rates deriving from municipal council resolutions rather than negotiations with the cemetery manager. In practical terms, this matters for three groups: local governments balancing the costs of maintaining cemeteries, cemetery managers, and entities providing services on cemetery grounds. Once the provisions enter into force, municipalities whose price lists have been annulled or whose resolutions are pending before provincial administrative courts can be expected to adopt new cemetery resolutions based on the proposed Article 2a, and those acts will become the next subject of review by administrative courts.
The charges are based on Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 306b § 2 of the Criminal Code, which classifies the act as a felony punishable by 5 to 25 years’ imprisonment for mismanagement causing damage exceeding PLN 4.1 billion.
Article 291 § 2a and § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permit ex officio securing of the enforcement of a ruling on the return of a financial benefit, forfeiture, or court costs, which is of real significance given damage of PLN 4.1 billion.
Four Orlen managers will remain in custody despite the court’s decision, because the prosecutor’s effective objection suspends the enforceability of the financial sureties until the court of second instance rules. The reader should note that the payment of PLN 1 million (Michał R.), PLN 800,000 (Filip W.), or PLN 500,000 each (the two remaining directors), totaling PLN 2.8 million, is neither a penalty nor a fine, but a preventive measure securing the proper course of the proceedings. The procedural dispute concerns not guilt, but solely the preventive measure: whether detention under Article 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be replaced by financial surety.
The court ordered detention but allowed it to be replaced by financial surety, whereas the prosecution sought custodial measures; this discrepancy will be resolved by the appellate court. Until the ruling becomes final, the sureties have no effect, so the suspects physically remain in custody. The function of financial surety is practical: it is intended to incentivize appearance when summoned by the authorities and to prevent obstruction of the proceedings. The court may also have taken into account that, with approximately 1,400 volumes of case files and more than 150 persons questioned, the evidence has already largely been secured, weakening the ground based on a risk of tampering. In the event of a conviction for an economic felony, the court may order forfeiture under Article 44 of the Criminal Code, including forfeiture of an equivalent value where the item itself is not subject to forfeiture (Article 44 § 4), while items not subject to return to the injured party pass to the State Treasury once the judgment becomes final (Article 44 § 5 and § 8). If the court were to apply extraordinary aggravation of punishment, Article 60 § 2 of the Criminal Code requires a custodial sentence of no less than one third of the lower limit of the statutory penalty. The sources provided contain no case law concerning financial sureties in comparable cases, so no precedent can be cited.
For the suspects, the coming weeks will determine whether they regain liberty or remain deprived of it; for the investigation itself, they will affect the climate in which the evidence is assessed.
As of 1 July 2025, an additional excise duty of PLN 40 per unit, and the market has shifted into the grey economy, where consumers have no guarantee as to the composition or origin of the product.
E-cigarette liquid is defined in Article 2(1)(35) of the Excise Duty Act as a solution, with or without nicotine, deemed to be intended for e-cigarettes where it is used or may be used for that purpose by reason of its composition and physicochemical properties, irrespective of the place of sale.
Legal sales of disposable e-cigarettes in Poland have almost disappeared following the introduction, as of 1 July 2025, of an additional excise duty of PLN 40 per unit, and the market has shifted into the grey economy, where consumers have no guarantee as to the composition or origin of the product. The crux of the matter is therefore not the amount of the tax itself, but the fact that products outside lawful circulation evade the control system based on the Act of 6 December 2008 on Excise Duty, namely excise stamp marking, AKC declarations and supervision by the National Revenue Administration. The legal issue concerns how the new regulations (draft UD363, amendments to the Excise Duty Act and the Fiscal Penal Code) are intended to harmonise the taxation of e-cigarettes and vaporisation devices irrespective of technology, and to close loopholes involving the sale of components separately.
This definition enables the authorities to tax products that only ostensibly are not “liquids”. Excise goods listed in Article 2(1)(1) of the Act include e-cigarette liquid, novel products, vaporisation devices, sets of parts for vaporisation devices and nicotine pouches. The obligations of entities operating lawfully include:
A manufacturer that fails to comply with these obligations places unmarked goods on the market, which falls within the sphere of the Fiscal Penal Code, where the amendment is intended to further regulate sanctions. Individual tax ruling 0111-KDIB3-3.4013.101.2026.2.MAZ confirms that classification of a product as an excise good determines the obligations relating to the organisation of trade and marking with excise stamps.
For lawful manufacturers and importers, this means a further tightening of reporting and excise stamp obligations, including new declaration forms from 2026. For grey-market sellers, inspections by the National Revenue Administration, seizure of goods and liability under the Fiscal Penal Code following the entry into force of UD363 are realistic risks. For consumers, especially young people (32% of final-year secondary school students smoke regularly), the health risk of unmarked products remains, because outside lawful circulation no one verifies the composition of the aerosol. The effectiveness of the new law will depend on enforcement of the ban on sales to minors and supervision of online sales, which excise duty alone does not ensure. Procedurally, the public consultation on draft UD363 can be expected to conclude, followed by publication of its final text together with an implementation timetable; the sources do not indicate a specific date, so government legislative announcements should be monitored.
Total gross aid, together with other de minimis aid in the current and two preceding calendar years, may not exceed the equivalent of EUR 200,000 (§ 4 of the Regulation of 26 April 2007).
The 2017 regulation limited aid to a number of gilts not exceeding 50% of the herd size (§ 10(1)(1)), indicating a possible ceiling also under the new measure.
For pig producers keeping sows, the real risk is not the loss of aid, but its still uncertain legal status: the support announced by Minister Stefan Krajewski — PLN 1,000 per sow kept and PLN 2,000 per purchased gilt or sow — is not yet legally binding. The measure is to be launched on 15 October 2026, but consultations with the Minister of Finance are ongoing, and ARiMR is still preparing the application forms. The legal issue to be resolved is therefore the procedure and legal basis for granting this aid: the conditions that will determine payment and the authority competent to award it. The target legal basis will be a regulation of the Council of Ministers modelled on previous sectoral instruments, including the Council of Ministers Regulation of 23 February 2017 on the implementation by the Agricultural Market Agency of tasks related to the establishment of exceptional adjustment aid for milk producers and farmers in other livestock sectors, whose §§ 9 and 10 set out the model conditions for aid for breeding gilts.
Under the analogous 2017 aid scheme, the Agricultural Market Agency granted support to a pig producer who, as at the date of submitting the application, kept at the herd premises no fewer than 10 and no more than 2,000 pigs according to the livestock register, while the purchased gilts had to have a pedigree certificate under Article 26 of the Act on the Organisation of Breeding and Reproduction of Farm Animals. The current announcement follows the same logic: what matters is that the animal is kept on a Polish holding and that piglets are born there, irrespective of the country of origin of the purchased gilt. In practice, this means obligations for the breeder such as:
If the regulation enters into force as of 15 October 2026, sow producers will obtain an application route to ARiMR, while missing declarations or discrepancies between the data and the livestock register will result in the application being left unexamined. Holdings planning to purchase gilts from abroad will not lose entitlement to support, provided they keep the animals in Poland and ensure farrowing of piglets within the country. Contract fattening remains outside the scope of additional financial mechanisms, so the benefit of the measure will be concentrated in herd-based holdings producing weaners. For the market, the key effect is to counteract the liquidation of core breeding herds: with the number of holdings having fallen from approximately 300,000 in 2005 to approximately 43,000 today, every delay in launching the aid postpones decisions to buy sows for slaughter.
Can proceedings against the perpetrator of the fatal road accident (Sebastian M., the September 2023 incident on the A1 motorway) be pursued under the new legal classification and the harsher sentencing range in Article 177a § 2 of the Criminal Code, or is he still subject to the former criminal-law regime applicable to the offence; and, separately, is it permissible to recharacterise the act as homicide with dolus eventualis under Article 148 § 1 of the Criminal Code?
The database does not contain the text of the provision, so I proceed on the general principle of lex mitior (Article 4 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Tribunal, and Article 1 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with Article 4 of the Criminal Code): an act is assessed under the law in force at the time it was committed, and a later provision applies only if it is more lenient for the offender. Since the collision occurred before the entry into force of “lex Kamilek” (the amendment of 14 April 2023, in force from 1 October 2023), Article 177a § 2 of the Criminal Code, which permits a sentence of 5 to 20 years, cannot be applied to Sebastian M.; Article 177 § 3 of the Criminal Code remains applicable, under which the upper limit corresponds to the lower limit of the penalty for homicide, namely a maximum of 8 years. A separate classification under Article 148 § 1 of the Criminal Code would require proof of dolus eventualis, that is, not merely foresight of death, but acceptance of that outcome; mere awareness of driving at approximately 315-329 km/h does not in itself establish it.
The case law of the Supreme Court consistently distinguishes dolus eventualis from conscious negligence in the interpretation of Article 9 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code. In cases concerning “street racing” and extreme speed, courts have accepted that exceptionally dangerous conduct may justify a finding of dolus eventualis where the offender’s indifference to the result can be demonstrated by the circumstances. This is, however, a factual assessment, and one that the prosecution in this case has expressly rejected.
It should be recalled that the legal classification is not final until the close of the trial: the court is not bound by the legal classification adopted in the current indictment, provided it does not worsen the accused’s position without ensuring the right of defence under Article 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The argument about “two speeds of punishment” is stronger as an argument for further legislative amendment or for recalibrating sanctions than as a criticism of the court. In a classification under Article 177 § 3 of the Criminal Code, the court in Piotrków Trybunalski cannot in practice impose more than 8 years, irrespective of the scale of recklessness: 315-329 km/h, PLN 2.2 million claimed in compensation, and a 15-year driving ban. In defence practice, the key will be to maintain a classification independent of Article 148 § 1 and Article 177a § 2 of the Criminal Code: there is no retroactive benefit from the new provision because it is harsher, and any attempt to recharacterise the act as homicide requires proof of acceptance of the result.
A braking trace, BMW telemetry, or the number of victims is not enough. The risk for the prosecutor and the injured parties is that, if the judgment of 21 October is based on Article 177 § 3 of the Criminal Code, any appeal by the injured parties seeking a harsher classification will have to demonstrate circumstances indicating passive acceptance of death, such as continuing to drive after earlier dangerous manoeuvres, rather than merely the fatal nature of the outcome.