If the bill enters into force in its current form, failure to adjust an employment contract within six months may, according to the interpretation presented at a sitting of the Sejm Health Committee, lead to termination of the employment contract, with the reason for termination not attributable to the employee.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill refers to 320 hours per month as an example of a limit corresponding to two full-time positions, and OZZRM asks whether this will be a fixed cap for every month, given that full-time working hours are not the same in every month.
For nurses, midwives and emergency medical responders, the real issue does not yet concern law currently in force, but rather the content of the pending amendment to the Act on healthcare services financed from public funds, a bill that interferes with employment relationships governed by the Labour Code. The dispute focuses on three elements: a six-month period for “adjusting” employment contracts, a seven-day period for submitting a declaration of additional employment, and a cap on total working time equivalent to two full-time positions. This, in turn, triggers the regime governing dismissals for reasons not attributable to employees, including collective redundancies, which OZZPiP identifies as the principal risk to employment stability.
The sources provided do not include the text of the pending amendment or its transitional provisions, so the method for calculating the two-full-time-position limit, the catalogue of derogations from the Labour Code and the procedure for verifying declarations must be assessed in light of existing regulations. The legal framework on which the limit will be based currently includes:
The most realistic scenario is that the bill will continue to be processed in the Sejm alongside trade-union pressure. OZZPiP has raised five objections: the risk of contract termination, the unclear concept of “adjustment”, the limitation of Labour Code protections, including the removal of consultation with a trade union organisation before termination, pre-retirement protection and protection for trade union activists, the seven-day period for declaring additional employment, and the threat to collective agreements. The practical significance for the individual groups is as follows:
Whether border sanitary control of imported apple concentrate from third countries, including Ukraine, must include the taking of a sample for laboratory testing, or whether documentary control based on a risk assessment is sufficient.
The sources provided contain no directly applicable provision; I therefore rely on the general principle of EU food law: Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls establishes a risk-based control model, under which the frequency and scope of measures, including laboratory testing, are determined by the risk assessment for the relevant product category and country of origin, rather than by an obligation to test every consignment. It follows from that principle that the authority may release a consignment on the basis of documents, such as certificates, supplier test results and commercial documents, without taking a sample, if the documentation permits an assessment of food safety and the product is not subject to enhanced controls. The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate’s cited response confirms precisely this model: the taking of a sample “depends on the risk assessment” and occurs primarily where there are doubts as to safety or where documentation is incomplete.
It is also material that concentrates from Ukraine are not subject to any special import conditions or enhanced controls; they are governed by the general rules, which excludes additional mechanisms increasing the frequency of testing.
The argument that “the consignment passed border control” is considerably weaker than it may appear: it proves no laboratory verification, which has direct evidential significance both in consumer and industrial disputes and in public debate about the quality of imports from Ukraine. A practitioner representing producers or importers should bear in mind the allocation of responsibility: Article 3 of Regulation 178/2002 (a general principle not expressly cited in the sources) places responsibility for food safety on the importer, and it is the importer, not the inspection authority, that must hold test results. Reliance solely on supplier documents without own testing entails a real legal risk, including liability for unsafe food and possible recovery of withdrawal costs.
Conversely, a practitioner from the domestic raw-material sector may argue that the risk assessment conducted by the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate, namely no samples from 1,304 consignments in 2025-2026 and no separate monitoring of consignments from Ukraine, is inadequate to the scale of imports and provides a basis for seeking a change in the frequency of controls or the introduction of enhanced controls at EU level. In that context, purported “effective border control” cannot be invoked as a reassuring circumstance.
Collections conducted during pastoral visits do not require any notification to state authorities.
The parish priest in Łódź who, since 5 October 2026, has been conducting pastoral visits without accepting envelopes is acting fully lawfully: neither Polish law nor canon law ties the Christmas pastoral visit to a specific month or makes an offering a condition of the visit. The reader should focus on the answer to the second question: whether the faithful in other parishes may refuse to pay. Here the conclusion is unequivocal. An offering during a pastoral visit is voluntary, and the general obligation to support the needs of the community under canon 222 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law does not specify any amount or require money to be given during home visits. The legal issue has two dimensions: the permissibility of the timing of the visits and the status of monetary collections conducted by a cleric. The schedule of pastoral visits is governed by canon 529 § 1 CIC, which requires the parish priest to know the faithful by visiting families, supporting the sick, and caring for the poor and lonely, without specifying the month in which such visits must begin. The collection of offerings, by contrast, is regulated by Article 57(1) and (2) of the Act on the Relationship between the State and the Catholic Church in the Republic of Poland, under which ecclesiastical legal persons have the right to collect offerings for religious, charitable and welfare, scientific, educational and upbringing purposes, as well as for the maintenance of clergy.
Under Article 57(2) of the Act on the Relationship between the State and the Catholic Church, the exemption from the notification requirement covers collections taking place within church grounds, chapels, and “in places and circumstances customarily accepted in a given locality and in a traditionally established manner.” A home visit by a parish priest with an envelope falls within this last category: the pastoral visit is a locally established tradition, so foregoing offerings is merely a decision not to exercise an entitlement, and an earlier timing of visits produces no legal effects. The decision on the timing and form of visits belongs to the parish priest within the framework of canon law, taking into account local organisation and any diocesan provisions; the CIC does not establish a uniform calendar for pastoral visits. The sources provided contain no case law concerning pastoral visits or offerings made during them, so no precedent can be cited. In practice, this means that a member of the Łódź parish of Our Lady Queen of Peace is under no obligation to prepare money, while a parishioner of another community should follow the announcements of his or her own parish.
The realistic scenarios are as follows:
Article 106b(2): a taxpayer is not required to issue an invoice in respect of tax-exempt supplies under Article 43(1), Article 113(1) and (9), or regulations issued pursuant to Article 82(3).
Companies providing VAT-exempt financial, credit and insurance services may account for commissions without an invoice, and therefore without KSeF, provided that the counterparty does not request such a document. September tax rulings issued by the Director of the National Tax Information confirm that the provisions on the National e-Invoicing System do not create an independent obligation to issue an invoice, but merely specify the manner in which an invoice must be issued where such an obligation already exists. The dispute therefore concerned the interpretation of Article 106b of the VAT Act in conjunction with Article 106ga of that Act, introduced by the Act of 16 June 2023 amending the VAT Act.
Three provisions are key, as cited by the National Tax Information in rulings 0111-KDIB3-1.4012.319.2026.2.IK and 0112-KDIL1-3.4012.251.2026.2.ŁW:
The resulting mechanism is as follows: in the case of VAT-exempt credit, loan and insurance intermediation services, a business-to-business transaction does not, by itself, give rise to an obligation to issue an invoice. If the purchaser does not request a document, the entrepreneur may document commissions by means of a commission note or other accounting evidence satisfying the requirements for documenting revenue; the National Tax Information expressly confirmed this in the second ruling. Only once such a request is made must the invoice be issued as a structured invoice using KSeF, in accordance with Article 106ga(1). Ruling 0112-KDIL1-3.4012.251.2026.2.ŁW also shows that the scope of KSeF may be assessed differently depending on the place of supply of the services under Article 28a et seq. of the VAT Act, so it is necessary in each case first to determine whether any invoice obligation exists at all.
For financial-sector businesses, this means there is no need to implement KSeF for VAT-exempt transactions as long as counterparties do not request invoices; they may continue to use commission notes and statements. The risk arises when the purchaser makes such a request: in that case, failure to issue a structured invoice through KSeF constitutes a breach of invoicing rules. Individual tax rulings are also of practical importance, as they protect taxpayers who act in accordance with their content.
Correction. The article states incompletely that “the letter triggers the procedure for electing a new rector”, without indicating that the resignation itself does not create an automatic statutory procedure: both the grounds for early termination of the office and the detailed procedure for supplementary elections are determined by the university’s statute (Article 8 of the Law on Higher Education and Science), while the statute merely guarantees that, in a public university, the election is conducted by the electoral college by an absolute majority of votes (Article 24(2)(1) and Article 24(3)). A more precise formulation would have been: “the resignation terminates the rector’s tenure, and the university statute determines the procedure for early elections, which will be conducted by the electoral college by an absolute majority, with the minister being notified by the chair of the college.” In addition, the wording concerning the mayor of Częstochowa, namely that “as a sanction he is prohibited from holding office”, is inaccurate: under Polish criminal law, a prohibition on holding public office is a penal measure imposed by a conviction judgment (Article 41 of the Criminal Code, in the event of conviction of a person holding public office for offences including those under Article 228 § 1 et seq.), whereas in the case of Mayor Krzysztof M., who has only been charged and has pleaded not guilty, what was most likely applied was a preventive measure in the form of a prohibition on holding a specified position or carrying out specified activity. It should therefore have been written that “the prosecutor imposed a prohibition on performing the function as a preventive measure”, not as a “sanction”. A temporary inability to perform duties at the investigation stage does not prejudge guilt and is preventive, not punitive, in nature.
Pursuant to Article 24(2)(1), the rector of a public university is elected by the electoral college, while Article 24(3) requires an absolute majority of votes.
Procedurally, one should expect notification of the minister of the results of the rector election, with the timing determined by the university’s statutes, and, in the criminal proceedings, a decision by the prosecutor’s office either to bring further charges or to refer the case to court.
The resignation of the suspended rector does not bring his legal difficulties to an end, but instead triggers a separate, university-level procedure for electing a new head of Jan Długosz University, while the corruption investigation continues independently. The answer is provided by the Law on Higher Education and Science: under Article 24(2)(1), the rector of a public university is elected by an electoral college, and Article 24(3) requires an absolute majority of votes. The detailed procedure is governed by the university’s statutes (Article 34(1)(1)). Prof. Janusz K. himself remains liable for his actions under the rules laid down in the statute and separate legislation (Article 8), while his criminal case remains within the competence of the National Prosecutor’s Office, not the university authorities.
The resignation submitted on 7 October 2026 means that, until a new rector is elected and assumes office, the university is headed by an acting rector, currently Prof. Bogusław Przywora, who performs the rector’s duties under Article 25(2). The electoral procedure follows these rules:
The new rector will be elected for a term running until 2028, while Article 77(2), as worded in the 2014 Act, limits service as rector to two consecutive terms. As regards Prof. Janusz K., in addition to the criminal proceedings concerning allegations of accepting benefits in exchange for undertakings and individual study arrangements, disciplinary liability as an academic teacher is also possible under Section VII of the Act.
The immediate practical consequence will be the election of a new rector by the Electoral College: the university will regain fully authorised single-person governing bodies and will be able to adopt the financial recovery plan referred to by the outgoing rector. For Prof. Janusz K. himself, the resignation has no discontinuing effect: the investigation conducted by the Katowice branch of the National Prosecutor’s Office continues, the PLN 50,000 financial surety and other non-custodial measures remain in force until the prosecutor changes the relevant decision, and the conclusion of the investigation may result either in an indictment or in discontinuance. For the Częstochowa community, including the former deputy marshal, the city mayor, the chair of the council, and business figures, the case remains part of a broader corruption investigation; the recall referendum scheduled for 25 October 2026 is a separate political track, not a criminal one.