Does the annex concluded in July 2026 by the then President of the POC (PKOl), extending the sponsorship agreement with PROFBUD until 2039, bind the committee, where the new board questions its rationality and has called it "bizarre" — that is, can acts of a legal person's organ that are formally within the scope of authority, but taken shortly before the loss of office and serving a doubtful interest, be effectively challenged by successors? [TEISINIS_PAGRUNDAS]: The sources provided contain no directly applicable provision, so I rely on the general principle of legal-person law (highlighted in the Polish normative order in Article 38 of the Civil Code): a legal person acts through its organs, and declarations and juridical acts performed by an organ within the limits of the mandate deriving from the statute bind that person, even if the decision was uneconomical or disadvantageous — its defectiveness is addressed on a different plane (the organ's liability for damage, Articles 416–425 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 38, or criminal liability if the relevant elements are present), not through automatic invalidity of the contract. Consequently, the mere fact that the acting president, Marian Kmita, has described the annex as "bizarre" does not extinguish the POC's obligation towards PROFBUD until 2039 — its termination or rescission requires a basis in the contract itself or an agreement between the parties, which — as follows from Malinowski's letter — the developer refuses to grant. [PRAKTICZNE... no wait—
Practical significance: PROFBUD's position is currently legally stronger than the POC's: the developer holds a signed instrument binding the committee and is additionally building a line of defence pointing to a breach of good morals and to threatened reputational harm arising from public commentary on the details of the cooperation. The risk to the POC is twofold — should it attempt to force the medallists to transfer their cash prizes to the committee (the proposal described in the letter of 21 October 2026) or to modify the contract unilaterally, it exposes itself to damages liability for improper performance of the sponsorship obligation and to an escalation of the dispute in which the sponsor may demand performance of the contract until 2039 with statutory interest for delay. The key to challenging the annex will be demonstrating that its conclusion in July 2026 — a few weeks before Piesiewicz's arrest, amid motions for his removal — satisfies the criteria of detriment justifying the organ's liability towards the legal person (and possibly a notification to the prosecution, should suspicion arise of acting to the POC's detriment), rather than a mere assessment of the length of the term. In practice, the POC should therefore first secure complete documentation for an audit of this annex before making it a media topic.
A bailiff removed before the entry into force of the Act under Article 19(1)(2) in its previous wording may be reappointed, at the latest by the age of 70.
In 2019–2021, 21 bailiffs were removed from office upon reaching the age of 65, and the administrative courts quashed those decisions as based on a discriminatory provision.
Court bailiffs and bailiff assessors will be able to remain in office for five years longer than previously, and persons already removed from office on grounds of age will regain the possibility of returning to the profession. The President has signed the amendment to the Act on Court Bailiffs, which moves the mandatory retirement from office from age 65 to age 70, constituting an age limit for practising the profession rather than a classic retirement age. The legal issue at stake concerns the ground for removing a bailiff or assessor from the post held, governed by the Act on Court Bailiffs. In the consolidated text promulgated on 12 June 2026, the age limit is 70 years, as confirmed by Article 3(1): a bailiff removed under the previous Article 19(1)(2) "may be reappointed to the office of court bailiff, however no later than until the day of reaching 70 years of age." An analogous rule for assessors provides for reappointment of persons removed under Article 144(1)(4) of the amended Act, likewise up to the age of 70.
The new age limit operates in two directions: it blocks future removals before the age of 70 and opens a path back for those already removed. Article 3 of the consolidated text provides:
The qualification requirements remain extensive: Article 11(1) requires, inter alia, Polish citizenship, full legal capacity, an unblemished character, completion of higher legal education, a bailiff traineeship, the bailiff examination, at least 2 years of work as an assessor, and having reached the age of 28. At the same time, Article 11(2)–(4) waive part of the requirements for professors, holders of postdoctoral degrees (dr hab.), judges, prosecutors, advocates, legal counsels, notaries, and persons with specified seniority in the judiciary and prosecution service. Bailiffs and assessors not meeting the requirement of higher legal education have 7 years from the entry into force of the Act to complete it (Article 303(1)). In comparable professions the age limit was already higher or non-existent: notaries had a limit of 70 years, judges could adjudicate until 70 subject to conditions, while advocates and legal counsels had no upper limit — it was precisely this disparity that formed the basis of the quashings by the administrative courts and the justification of the Ministry of Justice. Raising the limit to 70 removes from the provision the very ground for removal whose discriminatory character was confirmed by final judgments of the administrative courts.
The most realistic scenario is applications for reappointment by former bailiffs and assessors from among the 21 persons removed in 2019–2021, provided they have not passed the age of 70. This has practical significance for three groups:
Procedurally, the next steps to be expected are decisions by the presidents of courts of appeal on reappointment upon application by the persons concerned, and — in concluded matters — discontinuation by operation of law of pending removal proceedings against assessors.
Does a person who meets the criteria of government programmes subsidising driving licence courses have a guaranteed grant of "exactly" PLN 5,000, or merely the possibility of receiving support up to that maximum amount?
Legal basis: The source provided (Art. 15zw of the Act on Special Solutions Related to Preventing, Counteracting and Combating COVID-19, as worded in the consolidated text announced by the Marshal of the Sejm on 21 May 2025) provides that the grant "may be awarded up to the amount of PLN 5,000". The wording of the provision establishes an enabling norm, not a claim-based one: the legislator sets only an upper limit on the support and leaves the decision on awarding the grant, and on its actual amount, to the authority, with the amount adjusted to the costs actually incurred and documented. As to the remaining issues (the Labour Fund (KFS), the fine tariff, maximum fine amounts), my answer rests on general principles of law, because the source base contains no direct provisions on these matters, and I state this expressly.
Practical significance: In letters and applications for funding, one should not assert the position that reimbursement of "exactly PLN 5,000" is settled — the safer argument is that the statutory limit is up to PLN 5,000, and that the amount awarded corresponds to the documented costs of training and examinations. The practical risk is that an applicant who budgets "rigidly" for PLN 5,000 may not have above-limit costs (additional driving hours, re-sit examinations) covered by the grant, and, upon recalculation by the authority, will receive less than the amount applied for.
Correction: The article summarises that "exactly the same amount" (PLN 5,000) can be "recovered" in the form of state grants, which is an incomplete and misleading statement. Under Art. 15zw, the grant "may be awarded up to the amount of PLN 5,000", so PLN 5,000 is an upper limit, not a guaranteed sum, and the wording "recovered" suggests an unconditional reimbursement, whereas the award of the grant depends on the authority's decision, on meeting the programme's criteria, and on submitting the application in due time. More precisely, it should have been written: "under Art. 15zw, a grant may be awarded up to the amount of PLN 5,000; the actual amount depends on the authority's decision and on documented costs". Similarly questionable is the presentation of the fine tariff (a maximum fine of PLN 5,000, or PLN 6,000 where offences coincide) and the minimum fine of PLN 1,500 for driving without authorisation — the wording of these provisions does not appear in the sources provided, so the editorial team should have cited the specific legal bases or stated that the rates require verification against the current provisions of the Code of Petty Offences and the fine tariff.
Article 35(4) establishes a presumption that in establishments providing hotel services without entry in the register (Article 38), sanitary requirements are not met — this is a risk for hosts operating without registration.
Under Article 3(1)(8) of the Act on Hotel Services, hotel services are the "short-term, generally available letting of houses, apartments, rooms and accommodation places" together with the "provision, within the establishment, of related services."
For Airbnb hosts, the amendment to the terms of service of 20 November 2026 means above all the loss of an instrument of leverage: penalties imposed on guests for failure to perform cleaning obligations will no longer be enforceable within the platform. This, however, is a matter of contract, not statute — Polish law imposes no cleaning obligation on short-term tenants and does not authorise landlords to impose contractual penalties for non-performance absent an express contractual basis. The legal question reduces to the classification of the service: is the short-term rental of an apartment via the platform a lease under Article 659 § 1 of the Civil Code, or hotel services within the meaning of Article 3(1)(8) of the Act of 29 August 1997 on Hotel Services and Services of Tour Guides and Tourist Pilots (consolidated text, Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1944)? This classification determines the host's obligations — including who bears the cost of keeping the premises clean.
Hosts who until now offset cleaning by means of a fee plus a penalty for "failure to clean" will lose that avenue within Airbnb from 20 November; the realistic response will be an increase in the cleaning fee or the nightly rate, as comments already indicate.
Article 146 of that Act provides that the user may demand a refund of amounts paid in accordance with Articles 144–146, including compensation where any of the providers failed to apply strong authentication.
The perpetrator bears criminal liability: Article 287 § 1 of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years, and in less serious cases a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment of up to one year (§ 2).
A person who entered card details or a BLIK code on a fake "OLX", "Vinted" or "InPost" website does not lose their money irretrievably – their situation is governed by two parallel tracks: criminal proceedings against the perpetrator and a refund through the payment service provider. The scheme described in the message (a link outside the platform, a request for an SMS code) meets the elements of offences under the Criminal Code: Article 287 § 1 of the Criminal Code (interference with the automatic processing of computer data – punishable by imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years), and, where forged transfer confirmations are used, also computer fraud within the meaning of Article 8 of the Budapest Convention. If the fraudster induced the victim to make a transfer, classic fraud may also be at issue. The question of a refund is resolved under the Payment Services Act. This is a key provision for victims of smishing: if the bank did not enforce strong authentication for a transaction that the victim "authorised" under the influence of a scam, liability for the loss may shift to the payment provider.
The disclaimer in the interpretation DOP3.8222.73.2021.CNRU describes precisely this type of event: fraud by phishing, vishing and social engineering, in which the customer discloses authorising passwords or makes a transfer expected by the fraudsters. It follows from this characterisation that a transaction initiated by the victim under the influence of manipulation is not an ordinary, autonomous decision of the payer – it is an element of a fraud scheme, which is relevant when assessing whether the provider ensured the required safeguards.
The most realistic scenario for the victim is two-pronged: a notification of suspected commission of an offence under Article 287 § 1 of the Criminal Code initiates the prosecution of the perpetrator, while in parallel a complaint to the payment provider may lead to a refund if the absence of strong authentication is demonstrated. For sellers and buyers on OLX, Vinted or Allegro Lokalnie, the practical consequence is simple: a transaction conducted via a link sent in a messaging app falls outside the platform's protection, and the only route to recovering the money becomes the criminal and complaint-based route. For operators and banks, the growing scale of incidents means pressure to implement more effective blocking and to apply strong authentication. Further expected developments: the payment provider's decision following consideration of the complaint, with a refund or refusal to refund the amount, and – if the notification reaches the prosecutor's office – an order to open an investigation.