Can the contracting authority (MPK Lublin / the City of Lublin) lawfully conclude the procurement procedure upon receipt of only a single offer, without any obligation to cancel it, and what rigorous requirements must the assessment of that single offer meet — including examination of an abnormally low price — in order to avoid allegations of a breach of the Public Procurement Law (PZP)?
No direct statutory sources were provided, so I rely on the general rule under the Polish Public Procurement Law (implied by Article 226(4) and Article 255(1)(3) PZP): where only one offer is submitted by the offer submission deadline in a procedure conducted in the basic mode, the contracting authority is not obliged to cancel the proceedings (Article 255(1)(3) PZP excludes cancellation for a single offer) and may conclude the contract after carrying out a full evaluation — including the formal assessment and, where the price raises doubts, the abnormally low price examination under Article 224 PZP. In this procedure, the evaluation follows the structure set out in the ToR (SIWZ): price 60%, technical conditions 25%, warranty 15%, with a delivery period of 540 days and a hard deadline of 30 September 2028.
In practice, the KIO (National Appeals Chamber) does not raise an independent objection to the mere fact of a single offer — however, a review application may concern the correctness of the offer evaluation, in particular the descriptions of qualitative criteria (technical conditions and warranty, together 40% of the assessment) and the justification as to why the price of approx. PLN 65.5 million for 15 electric buses with chargers is not abnormally low in relation to the estimated contract value. KIO case law consistently requires that the contracting authority describe qualitative criteria precisely, apply them in accordance with their description, and, where the abnormally low price examination is conducted, obtain explanations of the price breakdown — the rejection of a contractor's explanations must be justified, since the sole contractor, as the only party to the proceedings, has a genuine interest in challenging every stage of the evaluation.
The argument of the losing bidder is structurally weaker here, because Solaris, as the sole contractor, will be the beneficiary of the contract; nevertheless, the contracting authority must still protect itself procedurally: document the substantive evaluation in accordance with the criteria descriptions (in particular 25% for technical conditions and 15% for warranty — non-price criteria dominate in this procedure) and, where doubts arise, call for explanations of the price under Article 224 PZP, rather than skipping the examination merely because there was no competition. A second risk is one of timing: the final delivery deadline of 30 September 2028 must fall within the 540-day period counted from the signing of the contract — if the evaluation and any review proceedings before the KIO push the contract signature beyond early April 2028, the contracting authority will not be able to reconcile the contractual deadline with the limit arising from the project co-financed under the European Funds for Eastern Poland programme (completion of everything by September 2029), which may create a risk of funding correction or the need to amend the contract under Articles 454–455 PZP.
In municipalities with up to 500,000 inhabitants, the limit is set by multiplying the number of inhabitants by 60 groszy, and the surplus above 500,000 by 30 groszy (art. 476 § 4 in conjunction with art. 135), with expenditure on agitation in advertising forms not exceeding 80 % of the limit (art. 136).
Mayors (wójtowie, burmistrzowie, and presidents of cities) who had counted on being able to stand for a further, third term remain under the existing legal regime — the two-term limit still applies, because the Sejm rejected the PSL draft amendment to the Electoral Code on 22 October 2026 (213 votes in favour, 215 against, 9 abstentions). The consequence is immediate: in the forthcoming local elections, the rule introduced by Law and Justice in 2018 will not change, and persons who have already served two terms will not be able to register their candidacies. The precise legal issue therefore concerns the limit on terms in elections for wójt (head of a rural municipality), burmistrz (mayor of a town), and president of a city, governed by Division VIII of the Electoral Code (Act of 5 January 2011, consolidated text announced by the Marshal of the Sejm on 1 September 2026), read in conjunction with the Act of 20 June 2002 on the direct election of wójt, burmistrz, and president of a city. The rejection of the draft means that any modification of this limit would require a new legislative procedure from the beginning.
The Electoral Code provides that elections for wójt are universal, equal, direct, and conducted by secret ballot (art. 471), and that a candidate for wójt may not simultaneously stand in another municipality (art. 472 § 1). Matters not regulated are governed, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Division VII, including those on electoral commissions (art. 470). The bodies competent in this procedure are the municipal and precinct electoral commissions, which act on the basis of guidelines issued by the National Electoral Commission (PKW) — an example is PKW Resolution No. 103/2024 of 4 March 2024, governing the procedure where only one candidate participates in an election or repeat ballot, including template resolutions on striking a candidate from the list pursuant to art. 483 § 1 of the Code. Campaigns remain subject to spending limits: in municipalities with up to 500,000 inhabitants, the limit is set by multiplying the number of inhabitants by 60 groszy, and the surplus above 500,000 by 30 groszy (art. 476 § 4 in conjunction with art. 136). If the required majority is not obtained, a repeat ballot is held, and where a wójt cannot be determined, the choice is made by the municipal council (art. 11(4) of the Act on the direct election of wójt, burmistrz, and president of a city). Among the sources there is no case law concerning the term limit, so no precedent can be cited; only PKW implementing acts are available, illustrating the organisational practice of elections during a term (PKW Resolution No. 264/2024 of 16 May 2024 on template forms for repeat, by-elections, and early elections of wójt in 2024–2029).
The real effect of the rejection of the draft will be felt primarily by local officials who have served two terms and by their political circles — notably the PSL, which, according to the report, has an extensive local-government base and had counted on keeping its wójtowie and burmistrzowie in office. Possible scenarios going forward:
Further monitoring of the matter should focus on the Sejm: whether parliamentary committees resume work on another draft changing the term limit, and whether the citizens' referendum petition announced by the leader of the PSL is formally lodged.
Where the examination requires an inquiry procedure through the national contact point in another state, Article 42d(15) provides a six-month time limit for reimbursement or a refusal decision; after that period, the NFZ pays the most probable amount and resolves doubts in favour of the beneficiary.
According to the NFZ report for 2025, the Fund reimbursed PLN 32.3 million for 11,334 cataract removal procedures and PLN 5 million for accompanying services.
Patients treated abroad in the EU and EEA will obtain reimbursement of costs without a prior application to the NFZ where treatment was urgently necessary, and intermediary companies will be able to receive reimbursement on their own account. On 22 October 2026, the Sejm adopted an amendment to the Act on Healthcare Services Financed from Public Funds, replacing the cross-border prescription with a prescription entitling the holder to reimbursement. The previous literal interpretation of the provisions on cross-border reimbursement of medicines excluded reimbursement of the cost of a medicine purchased in another Member State if the prescription did not meet the formal requirements of a cross-border prescription. The legal issue concerns the scope of reimbursement of the costs of services provided outside the country, as regulated in Articles 42a–42d of the Act on Healthcare Services Financed from Public Funds. Article 42b(1) grants the beneficiary the right to reimbursement of the costs of a guaranteed service provided in an EU or EEA state, and Article 42b(10) extends this to medicines purchased in a pharmacy in the territory of another Member State.
The amendment operates on three levels that alter the obligations of the patient and the NFZ: - replacing the cross-border prescription with a prescription entitling the holder to reimbursement removes the formal requirement that blocked reimbursement of the cost of a medicine purchased abroad on the basis of an ordinary reimbursable prescription;
For patients, what matters most is real access to reimbursement: the end of disputes over the form of the prescription and over failure to submit an application before departure in cases of urgent treatment. For companies organising travel, the new provision on transfer to a company account entitles them to receive reimbursement directly following assignment of the claim, which brings order to what has hitherto been a grey area of this model. For the NFZ, the number of applications and the need to verify invoices will increase, with support from the national contact point, which forwards queries to foreign institutions.
Art. 45c(1) and (2) enables a party to the proceedings to file a complaint with the Codification Tribunal for Sport of the Polish Olympic Committee within 14 days of service of the decision.
Art. 45b(5) provides for a reprimand, censure, suspension, temporary or permanent disqualification, a financial penalty, and even the transfer of a team to a lower division or expulsion from the association.
Following a pyrotechnic display during the match against Wisła Kraków, Widzew Łódź will pay PLN 50,000 and will be without its organised group of supporters for the away match against GKS Katowice. The decision was made under disciplinary liability, not civil or criminal liability — the club answers before league authorities for the conduct of its supporters in the stands. The legal basis for this framework is the Sports Act of 25 June 2010, specifically Art. 45b(1), under which disciplinary liability within a Polish sports association is implemented according to the rules set out in the disciplinary regulations. The specific penalties and procedure are governed by the association's disciplinary regulations — in this case, the regulations applicable within Ekstraklasa structures. Art. 45b(3) lists what such a regulation must contain: entities subject to liability, prohibited acts, types of penalties, disciplinary bodies, and the procedure to be followed. The catalogue of available sanctions is broad — Art. Against this backdrop, the financial penalty and away-ban imposed on Widzew fall within the lower range of available sanctions, although they are genuinely painful for the club.
The Ekstraklasa League Committee's competence to impose these penalties stems from the model provided for in Art. 45b(1)–(3) of the Sports Act — the league, as the organiser of the competition, is linked to the Polish sports association (the PZPN), and its disciplinary bodies act on the basis of the regulations. The entity liable is the club as a legal person (cf. individual tax interpretation 0114-KDIP4-2.4012.30.2026.2.KS, citing Art. 3(1) and (2) and Art. 6(1) and (2) of the Sports Act: a sports club operates as a legal person, and clubs numbering at least 3 form sports associations). It is the club, not individual supporters, that bears the consequences of collective conduct by the crowd — hence the financial penalty is borne by Widzew, and the away-ban restricts the supporters as a group affiliated with the club. The procedure guarantees the club two principles: the right to a defence and two-instance proceedings (Art. 45b(2)). In practice, this means Widzew may challenge the League Committee's decision before the appellate instance of the association's disciplinary bodies. Under Art. 45b(4), parallel criminal or administrative proceedings against the perpetrators of the use of pyrotechnics do not preclude disciplinary proceedings for the same act — the league and, potentially, law enforcement authorities operate independently.
Realistic scenarios for the club: - the PLN 50,000 penalty becomes a financial burden for a club that, after eleven matchdays, has recorded only one win and is facing results below its owner's expectations;
A judge may apply for a 50% reduction in their case allocation — the committee amendment abandoned the original range of 25–75%.
The amendment also excludes the possibility of seconding judges to the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland, the office supporting the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Chancellery of the Prime Minister.
Judges of ordinary courts who wish to continue adjudicating after reaching the age of 65 will no longer depend on the consent of the National Council of the Judiciary — the decision on whether they retain their position will rest with the Minister of Justice, with the relevant documents forwarded to the Minister through the president of the court of appeal. On 23 October 2026, the Sejm adopted an amendment to the Act on the System of Ordinary Courts which removes the decision-making role of the National Council of the Judiciary in the procedure for extending adjudication beyond the age of 65, while simultaneously tightening the rules on seconding judges to non-adjudicative duties. The amendment transfers this decision to the Minister of Justice, thereby altering the allocation of responsibility for staffing the courts with judges beyond retirement age.
Once the changes enter into force, the procedure will proceed as follows:
Under the second pillar of the amendment, consecutive non-adjudicative secondments (other than secondments to another court) may not exceed four years in aggregate, which eliminates indefinite secondments; every secondment will have to be justified by an actual need and by its impact on the functioning of the judge's home court. It is worth noting, however, that the legislature has previously shifted this competence between bodies — the Act of 12 July 2017 added the Minister of Justice's consent to Art. 69 § 1b, and the Act of 16 November 2016 (Art. 7) gave § 1 its current wording providing for a declaration submitted to the Minister, demonstrating that the 1997 model of "consent of the National Council of the Judiciary" (Art. 1(1) of the Act of 17 December 1997) has historically been subject to variation.
The practical significance of this lies with judges approaching the age of 65 — their continued adjudication will depend on the decision of the Minister of Justice, a solution criticised (by MPs Zimoch and Woś) as an excessive subordination to the executive, particularly given that the medical certificate confirms full capacity to hold judicial office. For the courts, the significant change is the four-year aggregate limit on non-adjudicative secondments: judges currently seconded for an indefinite period will have to return to adjudicating, which will affect the staffing of the bodies to which they were seconded. The minority motion, adopted unanimously, grants pregnant judges the right to apply for a reduction in their case allocation by 25%, 50%, or 75% — this is the only adopted change of a distinctly employment-related character.