A regulation of the Minister of Health may only further specify that scope, taking into account the midwife’s “necessary qualifications and the required range of skills and duties”; it is at this regulatory level that the certificate requirement currently in force will be abolished.
Article 15a and Article 15b(1) of the Act provide that diagnostic procedures are performed following a prior physical examination of the patient in person or an examination through information and communication technology systems, and following a review of the medical records.
Midwives in Poland have had statutory authority from the outset to provide diagnostic and preventive healthcare services independently. The sole barrier to testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) was the requirement for an additional certificate introduced by an implementing regulation. The Ministry of Health is removing this barrier through a new regulation which, according to Deputy Minister Katarzyna Kęcka, is to be signed by mid-November 2026. The change concerns implementing regulations under the Act of 15 July 2011 on the Professions of Nurse and Midwife (consolidated text published by notice of the Marshal of the Sejm dated 4 December 2025), Article 2 of which provides that nursing and midwifery are autonomous medical professions. The scope of midwifery practice includes, among other things, the independent provision of preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitation services, while Articles 15a and 15b of the Act permit diagnostic procedures to be performed following an examination of the patient in person or through information and communication technology systems.
Once the new regulation enters into force, a midwife licensed to practise will be able to collect samples for HR-HPV testing without a separate document confirming completion of certified training. The following provisions remain the legal basis:
A midwife’s professional status is confirmed by a licence to practise issued in accordance with the templates prescribed by the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 22 December 2023. Endorsements on that licence may restrict independent practice, so midwives holding a restricted or conditional licence must verify the scope of their authorisation individually. The educational standards for midwifery degree programmes (Regulation of the Minister of Science of 10 October 2024) already include competence in providing preventive, gynaecological and gynaecological oncology care, supporting recognition of midwives’ qualifications as sufficient without an additional certificate. The sources supplied contain no judicial ruling or judgment concerning the collection of samples for HPV testing by midwives. The available individual interpretations merely confirm the general status of midwifery as an autonomous medical profession and the range of activities specified in Article 4(1) of the Act.
The next concrete step is the signing of the regulation; it will enter into force upon expiry of the vacatio legis period specified in the instrument. The practical implications concern three groups:
Further developments should be monitored in the Journal of Laws: publication of the amending regulation of the Minister of Health and its effective date will determine when midwives may actually begin collecting samples for HR-HPV testing without a certificate.
Whether the failure of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal to designate a judge rapporteur and ensure the examination of citizens’ constitutional complaints, while giving priority to applications lodged by the President of the Republic and the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), violates the constitutional principle of equal access to the Constitutional Tribunal and may give rise to disciplinary liability or accountability under the constitutional framework.
The sources provided contain no directly applicable provision, so this analysis relies on general principles of constitutional law. Article 79 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland grants anyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed the right to lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Tribunal. That remedy has practical value only if the complaint is examined within a reasonable time.
The right to a hearing within a reasonable time derives from Article 45(1) of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), whose standards the Tribunal applies to its own adjudicative activity. According to the report, in 2026 the President of the Tribunal failed to ensure the examination of a single citizen’s constitutional complaint, while the Tribunal delivered only four judgments, all on applications lodged by the President of the Republic and the KRS. The backlog stood at approximately 1,200 cases: around 500 classified and 700 unclassified, including six dating from 2016 and approximately 40 pending for seven years.
Selecting cases according to the applicant’s identity—giving preference to public authorities over citizens—is incompatible with the essential purpose of the constitutional complaint as a remedy for protecting individuals, rather than an instrument for the political review of legislation.
The case law on this specific issue is not uniform, as the Tribunal itself faces a crisis of legitimacy. The report indicates that some lawyers question the legal basis for Judge Korwin-Piotrowska’s actions, although four former Presidents of the Tribunal—Safjan, Stępień, Zdziennicki and Zoll—have supported them. It should nevertheless be recalled that, in its settled case law predating the crisis, including the judgment of 24 October 2017 in Case K 11/17 concerning the Constitutional Tribunal Act, the Tribunal consistently emphasised that its proper functioning is a prerequisite for effective constitutional protection of individuals, and that excessive delays in adjudication breach the standard laid down in Article 45 of the Constitution.
In its opinions concerning Poland, including Opinion CDL-AD(2023)006, the Venice Commission, cited in the report as a critic of the proposed constitutional amendment, stated that restoring confidence in the Tribunal requires restoring its role as a court protecting individual rights. This strengthens the arguments of those challenging the priority previously afforded to political cases.
The argument that citizens’ constitutional complaints have received discriminatory treatment is now considerably stronger because it is supported by concrete comparative evidence: in the same year, four judgments were delivered exclusively on applications lodged by the President of the Republic and the KRS, and none in cases brought by citizens. This provides a clear basis for allegations in any disciplinary proceedings against Święczkowski—Article 30 of the Constitutional Tribunal Act requires the Tribunal’s President to ensure its efficient functioning—and for assessing the lawfulness of his procedural decisions. In practical terms, counsel representing complainants whose cases date from 2016–2019 should now promptly request the designation of a judge rapporteur and the scheduling of a hearing.
They should invoke the announcement by Judge Korwin-Piotrowska, who is heading the Tribunal, that citizens’ constitutional complaints will receive priority, together with delays exceeding the standards established by the European Court of Human Rights, including Aleksandra’s cases dating from 2017 and the 40 cases pending for seven years. The risk to avoid is relying exclusively on an allegation of “politicisation”. A claim that excessive delays violate Articles 45 and 79 of the Constitution is stronger and more difficult to rebut, and does not depend on the dispute over the lawfulness of the Tribunal’s composition.
A woman must have reached the age of 60 and a man the age of 65, and both must have completed at least 25 years (100 quarters) of old-age and disability pension insurance, as required by Article 19(1), points 1 and 2, of the Act on Farmers’ Social Insurance.
The periods specified in Article 20(1) of the Act on Farmers’ Social Insurance do, however, count: coverage under the social insurance scheme for individual farmers and their family members between 1983 and 1990, and operating or working on an agricultural holding after reaching the age of 16 and before 1 January 1983.
Reaching retirement age does not automatically trigger payment of a pension by the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (KRUS): entitlement to an agricultural pension is subject to two cumulative conditions, so the most common obstacle is an insufficient qualifying period, rather than age. The legal issue is therefore to determine which periods count towards that 25-year qualifying period and which have no effect. The date of birth is decisive: for persons born after 31 December 1948, periods of insurance under the general social insurance scheme administered by the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) do not count towards the agricultural qualifying period. The following periods specified in Article 20(1) of the Act on Farmers’ Social Insurance do, however, count:
KRUS determines entitlement to an agricultural pension solely on the basis of its own records of qualifying periods, while earlier periods must be substantiated by the applicant: a mere statement that the applicant worked “on the land” has no legal effect. Article 20(2) of the Act imposes a restriction: periods referred to in Article 20(1) are not counted if they have already been credited towards periods determining entitlement to an old-age or disability pension under separate legislation. The same years therefore cannot be counted twice under two different schemes. Persons born after 31 December 1948 may receive both benefits, but only if they independently qualify for each: each institution, KRUS and ZUS, assesses entitlement under its own rules. For persons born before 1 January 1949, as a general rule, only one benefit is paid, as selected by the recipient. A ZUS pension provides an alternative route: where the conditions under the general scheme are met, the pension may be increased to reflect periods during which agricultural social insurance contributions were paid, as confirmed by a KRUS certificate. Article 19(2) of the Act provides for an earlier retirement age of 55 for women and 60 for men, subject to a qualifying period of at least 30 years and cessation of agricultural activity. In cases of expropriation or permanent withdrawal of land from agricultural production, a qualifying period of 12 years and 6 months is sufficient (Article 19(3)).
Three scenarios are realistically possible: refusal of an agricultural pension where the applicant has fewer than 25 years of qualifying periods; award of the benefit after earlier periods before 1983 have been substantiated; or recourse to ZUS for a pension increased to reflect agricultural insurance periods. A person with 24 years of agricultural qualifying periods and salaried employment after 1948 will remain ineligible for a KRUS pension despite having reached retirement age: this group is most exposed to an adverse decision. Reviewing the supporting documentation before submitting an application is therefore of practical importance, particularly evidence of work on an agricultural holding before 1 January 1983. For farmers planning to retire, the appropriate step is to submit an application to KRUS together with documents substantiating the periods referred to in Article 20(1). If the application is refused, the KRUS decision is subject to review, and the final benefit entitlement will depend on the authority’s determination. The next development to monitor is the content of the KRUS decision, specifically which periods have been recognised and which have been excluded under Article 20(2).
Does the transfer of movable fixed assets (a tractor, weighing and packaging machines, a forklift truck and a passenger/goods vehicle) to a partner upon the liquidation of a general partnership give rise to a VAT liability for the partnership under Article 14 of the VAT Act, and, if so, in what amount, where the partner will use those assets to make further taxable supplies?
I rely on Article 14 of the VAT Act, the substance of which was set out in the expert’s response in the message. As the sources do not contain the full text of that provision, I reconstruct the applicable rule on the basis of a general principle of tax law and Article 14(5), cited in the message. A general partnership is a separate taxable person for VAT purposes.
Upon its liquidation, it must prepare a physical inventory of its assets as at the liquidation date. The partnership accounts for VAT on the value of those assets in respect of which it was entitled to deduct input VAT, as in the case of an intra-Community supply or a taxable supply. In practice, this means that the partnership incurs a VAT liability on the residual acquisition cost of the fixed assets, less accumulated depreciation.
The key point is that, since the partner receiving the assets is registered as an active VAT taxpayer and will use them for taxable business activities, the deemed “sale” upon liquidation is tax-neutral: the partnership reports output VAT, while the partner, subject to maintaining the requisite documentation (an internal invoice or accounting based on the physical inventory), deducts that amount as input VAT.
The phrase “by the end of 2026” means that the physical inventory must be prepared as at the date of the partnership’s liquidation, and the resulting VAT must be accounted for in the return for the period in which the VAT liability arises. Postponing liquidation until the next tax period changes only the timing of the accounting; it does not remove the obligation. One practical risk concerns the passenger/goods vehicle dating from 2015.
If only 50% of the VAT was deducted upon its acquisition (Article 86(3)(1) of the VAT Act), the taxable amount upon liquidation is adjusted proportionately, requiring a separate calculation for that asset. Incorrectly using its full value as the taxable amount will overstate output VAT. A second risk is that omitting any asset in respect of which input VAT was deductible from the physical inventory exposes the partnership’s VAT accounting to challenge during a tax audit.
Before liquidation, it is therefore necessary to verify which fixed assets qualified for an input VAT deduction upon acquisition, establish their residual value after depreciation, and document their transfer to the partner’s farm in a manner that enables the partner to deduct input VAT.
The court dismissed the claims, finding that the odours from the livestock operation did not exceed permissible levels and that the claimant had purchased the plot knowing that it adjoined a pigsty.
Under Article 7 of the Act of 10 July 2008, the Minister of Agriculture may, by regulation, prescribe additional requirements for applications for a determination of compliance with veterinary requirements, as well as the procedure for notifying an intention to conduct an activity subject to supervision.
A farmer who had been rearing approximately 50 pigs for more than 20 years prevailed in proceedings before the District Court in Tczew in which a new neighbour sought the removal of the pigs, the construction of a four-metre barrier, an injunction prohibiting the storage of manure along the boundary between the properties, and PLN 60,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary harm. The key point for the reader is that the court dismissed the claims, finding that the odours from the operation did not exceed permissible levels and that the claimant had purchased the plot knowing that it adjoined a pigsty. The dispute concerned civil law—the permissibility of interference emanating from neighbouring property and private nuisance—rather than administrative or criminal liability. Separately, the farmer was inspected by veterinary authorities following complaints from neighbours, and the inspections “did not reveal any significant irregularities”. Such livestock operations are supervised by the Veterinary Inspection, whose responsibilities are defined in the legislation reinstating its organisational framework: the Act of 25 July 2001 amending the Act on the Veterinary Profession and Veterinary Chambers. The legislation currently in force in this area is the consolidated text of the Act on the Protection of Animal Health and the Control of Infectious Animal Diseases, published by notice of the Marshal of the Sejm dated 17 April 2023. Chapter 8 governs the control of infectious diseases, while Chapters 10 and 10a address criminal provisions and administrative penalties.
The sources provided indicate that the authority competent to inspect the holding is the district veterinary officer. Under Article 7 of the Act of 7 January 2005, that officer must provide the provincial veterinary officer with information on suspected or confirmed cases of diseases subject to compulsory control or notification within the EU, and neighbouring district veterinary officers with information on the occurrence of zoonotic diseases subject to monitoring. The Veterinary Inspection is responsible for monitoring chemical and biological residues, veterinary medicinal product residues and radioactive contamination in animals and feed. Official controls on animal feed are governed by Article 5 of the Act of 2 April 2004 amending the Act on Animal Feed. In the civil proceedings themselves, the findings made during the site inspection were decisive: the judge detected an odour immediately adjacent to the pigsty, but it was virtually imperceptible in the yard and absent from the claimants’ home. The court further found that the claimants had known of the neighbouring livestock operation when purchasing and renovating the property, and that the farmer had not significantly increased the scale of the operation since their purchase.
For farmers, the practical implication is that a lawfully operated, small-scale livestock operation may withstand a dispute with a neighbour if production does not increase following a change in ownership of the neighbouring property and veterinary inspections disclose no violations. As regards purchasers of properties adjoining agricultural land, the court held that they must anticipate the ordinary inconveniences of rural life, which weakens claimants’ position in similar cases. Nevertheless, complaints may trigger further inspections by the district veterinary officer and, if an infectious disease listed in Annex 2 is confirmed, the application of control measures under Article 41 of the Act on the Protection of Animal Health.