This paper presents the evolution of the death penalty in Kazakhstan in its both legal and social aspects. The legal aspect includes analyses of the development and transformation of its regulations provided for in constitutions and criminal codes in the period from 1991 (i.e., the country’s independence) to 2022 (i.e., the year of the abolition of the death penalty). The paper also presents the laws governing the execution of the death penalty while it was in effect. The social aspect, on the other hand, includes an analysis of the evolution of the Kazakh society’s attitude toward the death penalty. The analyzed materials were the aforementioned legal acts and legal literature. They were obtained, among other things, during a study visit to the library of the Law Faculty of Kazakhstan State Law University in Astana.
The article explores the current and multi-layered issue of lawyers’ roles in mediation, focusing in particular on cases where lawyers act as mediators. Drawing on a pilot empirical study of 161 respondents from various professional groups involved in mediation, the authors look at how legal training influences the effectiveness of mediation. The pilot study highlights both positive and negative determinants affecting a mediator’s performance from the perspective of legal training. Consequently, the authors attempt to assess how far legal education can help – or, conversely, complicate – a lawyer’s work as a mediator. The findings reveal a dual picture. On the one hand, respondents recognize the advantages of legal background, such as legal expertise and the ability to draft mediation settlement agreements effectively. On the other hand, they also highlight related risks, most notably the tendency to carry over litigation-oriented habits typical of legal counsel into mediation, which may undermine the neutrality required for an effective mediation process. Moreover, the authors advance a de lege ferenda proposal calling for the introduction of mandatory instruction in mediation, negotiation, and conflict management into law degree programmes as well as professional legal training. This approach could tangibly enhance the quality of mediation practice in Poland, contribute to a more nuanced and favourable perception of lawyers in the role of mediators, and ultimately support the wider adoption of consensual dispute resolution as an alternative to court proceedings.
The article demonstrates the increasing environmental risks associated with active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and argues that current EU law lacks a coherent concept of pharmaceutical waste capable of addressing these risks. Existing practice often equates pharmaceutical waste with unused or expired medicinal products or subsumes it under medical waste, a broad category that fails to capture the diverse sources, decentralised generation, and specific chemical characteristics of APIs. As a result, legal obligations concerning waste collection, classification, and liability remain unclear. A distinct legal category of pharmaceutical waste is necessary to enable targeted regulatory measures and improve environmental and health protection. The article analyses the legal status of pharmaceutical waste in EU legislation, soft law, and academic literature, and explores its relationship to medical waste. It then develops two approaches to defining pharmaceutical waste: one based on enlisting source products and another based on the properties of source products (presence of APIs or API-like substances). The first approach mirrors current usage but poses the risk of excluding environmentally relevant products and importing long-standing classification ambiguities. A composition-based approach better reflects scientific insights from the pharmaceuticals in the environment (PiE) field, capturing contaminated materials and immediate packaging where appropriate. The paper concludes with a proposal for a definition of pharmaceutical waste.
The CJEU judgment in SCHUFA (C-634/21) redefines the ‘decision’ of Article 22 GDPR: if a score generated by one entity effectively determines another entity’s decision, the data subject is entitled to the protections of Article 22, regardless of whether a human formally signs off. This article asks what that reasoning means for medicine: when an algorithm’s output shapes a physician’s clinical judgment, does the patient have a right to know, and what must they be told? The discussion confronts the SCHUFA doctrine with informed consent requirements under Polish law and the new Article 12 of the Code of Medical Ethics, situates it against the international debate, distinguishes diagnostic from cognitive uses of AI through operational criteria, examines liability for algorithmic harm after Directive (EU) 2024/2853, and addresses the problem of large language models – tools physicians already use but which cannot be meaningfully certified.
The question about a good, equitable and just law has been posed for centuries. It concerned the investigation of the essence of the law itself as well as the quest for a measure with which to evaluate the law, and finally the indication of institutions to carry out such an evaluation and the determination of its possible consequences in the event of a negative outcome. Today, in many countries, this is the domain of the judiciary, with constitutional norms being the criterion for evaluation. The adoption of such an arrangement is associated with the recognition of the supremacy of the constitution as a legal act. Institutional forms of examining the constitutionality of statutes, as well as the compliance of the actions of the executive power with the provisions of statutes, did not develop on a larger scale until the end of the 19th century and grew out of the tradition of judicial review on the one hand, and the concept of the Rechtsstaat on the other. However, the road leading to the solutions adopted at that time was long and it is worth tracing back. This article will present the main directions of solutions starting from antiquity and ending at the end of the 18th century, when the doctrinal background for the political structures introduced from the 19th century onwards had already developed. We describe the consequences of the Greek belief that the law is good by definition, Roman tradition that the law is the measure to solve the practical cases, the Middle Age’s dispute on the nature of the king’s legislation power defined by two formulas from Digesta, princeps legibus solutus and princeps legibus alligatus est. Finally we present the thought of Edward Coke, chief justice of Westminster Courts, on the supremacy of the common law, particularly expressed in Bohnam case (1610), and the activity of French parlements (supreme courts), in XVI-XVIII centuries, as the roots of judicial review procedure and the Rechtsstaat concept.
The objective of this article is to present the EU rules regarding the protection of consumers’ rights in the context of the provision of services in the EU internal market with the intermediation of collaborative economy platforms. The first approach to collaborative economy platforms entering the EU internal market focused on specific challenges posed by the triangular configuration of economic relationships of actors involved in the provision of services via such platforms (European Commission communication of 2016). This sector-specific approach of reflection shifted soon afterwards to a more general and overarching approach to all online platforms and even more general – to providers of information society services. After almost fifteen years of the presence of collaborative economy platforms in the EU internal market, it seems important to present the synthesis of this evolution of the EU approach and the resulting EU regulatory scheme. As a starting point, the article takes the challenges identified by academia and the EU institutions concerning the protection of consumers’ rights in contracts concluded with the intermediary of collaborative economy platforms, including: the legal classification of the actors involved in collaborative economy platforms as ‘consumers’ and ‘traders’, terms which are crucial for the application of the EU rules on consumer protection; the obligations of such platforms and the providers of underlying services in their relations with consumers; the division of liability between the collaborative economy platform and the provider of the underlying service in their relations with the consumer; and, last but not least, the role of collaborative economy platforms in enforcing the obligations of underlying service providers. These issues are presented with due account of the evolution of EU law since collaborative economy platforms appeared in the EU internal market. The article starts with a short presentation of collaborative economy platforms in the EU internal market and the challenges this posed for the application of EU law at the time. Then, the article investigates the EU law as it stands at present regarding the actors in the collaborative economy model from the traditional perspective in EU consumer law, distinguishing between a ‘consumer’ and a ‘trader’, and the obligations of collaborative economy platforms and providers of the underlying services in their relations with consumers. The final part scrutinises the relations between collaborative economy platforms and providers of the underlying services in terms of enforcement.
Epidemiological data concerning persons affected by dementia disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are alarming. The population affected by dementia disorders may increase by up to three times by the year 2050. Adverse demographic changes remain the underlying reason, the swift ageing of the majority of European societies (all health and economic consequences included) having given rise to the silver tsunami phrase coined in scientific literature. Legal solutions regarding the legal competence of individuals with mental disorders, dementia included, differ across individual European Union Member States, with the disparities arising due to varying legal traditions. While some countries still employ the institution of full or partial incapacitation, others have chosen to replace the latter with more flexible solutions. The right to vote is a fundamental right in democratic states. As it is, the 27 EU Member States pursue one or more of the following three electoral right-related solutions: (1) exclusion from participating in elections, (2) conditional participation in elections, (3) full voting rights. Since states applying the first solution comprise over two-thirds of the European Union’s population, several hundred thousand constituents are excluded from the voting process. Denying such large groups the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament may gravely impact election results. The issue of regulations regarding voting rights extended to persons without full legal competence has not been harmonised on the EU level. Electoral law regulations have been designated a Member States’ competence, with the proviso that states must respect general EU law principles, including the prohibition of discrimination.
In the era of the information society, the security of personal data has become a key issue, both at the individual and state levels. Significant challenges arise in the context of cross-border data transfers between the European Union and the United States, where differences in approaches to privacy protection and legal frameworks create numerous tensions and difficulties. The main issues concern the lack of coherent legal frameworks allowing for the secure transfer of personal data to the United States in compliance with EU privacy standards. Previous mechanisms, such as Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield, were deemed incompatible with EU regulations by the Court of Justice of the European Union, leaving data flows in a legal vacuum. The study aims to analyze the current conditions of cross-border data transfers between the EU and the US in the context of protecting the security and privacy of EU citizens’ data. The key outcome is to identify potential regulatory scenarios that could ensure effective protection of Europeans’ personal data. The analysis includes case studies of regulatory mechanisms (Safe Harbor, Privacy Shield) and EU legal frameworks, such as the GDPR, in light of CJEU decisions. The research also explores possible future scenarios for transatlantic data transfer cooperation, examines the political and legal differences in privacy approaches between the EU and the US, and considers alternative solutions, such as data localization or technical protection barriers.
Judicial independence is one of the cornerstones of modern constitutionalism. Without an independent judiciary, effective oversight of government action would be impossible, and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms would likely remain illusory. Importantly, in contemporary Europe, judicial independence can no longer be viewed as solely a matter of domestic law. On the contrary, it is one of the pillars of the transnational European legal order, which is constituted by the standards developed by the Council of Europe and European Union law. These two systems influence each other, as evidenced by numerous references in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to one another. These references also concern the interpretation of the notion of judicial independence. This article aims to examine the significance of judicial independence under one of the founding documents of the European legal order, that is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Convention). The analysis focuses on how the ECtHR interprets the concept of ‘judicial independence’, and the role this safeguard plays within the Convention’s broader normative structure. The central thesis advanced here is that the significance of judicial independence cannot be reduced solely to Article 6 of the ECHR. In fact, it serves a dual function. On the one hand, it forms part of the individual’s right to a court. On the other hand, it serves as a value influencing the interpretation of all provisions of the Convention. The article is divided into two main sections. The first part explores the substance of judicial independence as developed in the ECtHR’s case law. The second addresses the functions of this principle within the framework of the Convention. This section first briefly considers judicial independence as part of a subjective right under Article 6 ECHR, and then examines its broader impact on the interpretation of other Convention rights. The article concludes with a summary of the key findings.
This article discusses the regulation of the escape clause in private international family, property and succession law from the perspective of the jurisdiction of a Polish court or other authority, like a notary public. In cases concerning family, property and succession, the predictability of the applicable law is of particular importance as private laws in those matters differ in substantial way from one country to another. Whereas the escape clause exceptionally allows the court for the a posteriori application of the law more closely connected or at least substantially connected to the case which can create a situation of uncertainty of applicable law for the involved parties. The functioning of the escape clause in the family (parental responsibility and maintenance), property (transit goods) and succession private international law is analysed in this article. The common features and the particularities of the legal regulation are presented. First, the law that is manifestly more closely connected to the case, no matter if family, property or succession, is indicated on the basis of all circumstances of the case and not only one (or two), as is the case in the indication of law on the basis of the connecting factor. Those circumstances are different depending on the hypothesis of the legal norm (e.g., different for transit goods than for the succession case), the wording of the escape clause and are estimated by the court a posteriori on the basis of all facts of the case. Second, the application of the escape clause is excluded if there is a choice of law (although in some cases parties are not allowed to choose law, e.g., for transit of goods or parental responsibility). Third, the escape clause is applicable exceptionally, as it introduces the uncertainty of law. Fourth, the escape clause is not regulated uniformly in international family, property and succession law. Moreover, the article presents how values such as legal certainty and flexibility are balanced by the legal regulation of the escape clause in family, property and succession private international law in order to indicate the law most closely related to a given relationship.
The main objective of this paper is to discuss the existence and nature of subsumption as well as the model basic norm in the decision-making process in civil mediation, conducted primarily with a view to amicable resolution of a legal dispute through settlement. The analysis compares the general model of judicial application of law and the decision-making process in mediation. Furthermore, the paper characterises prospective mediatory subsumption and retrospective judicial subsumption, as well as the features and components of the so-called model basic norm involved in mediatory subsumption. The author debates the position of K. Płeszka and M. Araszkiewicz, who contend that the principle of subsumption is derogated in the model course of mediation stages. The observations made on the grounds of legal theory—particularly concerning the components of the mediation basic norm — are followed by an overview of selected relevant empirical findings, especially regarding the objectives and effectiveness of mediation. The findings in question were obtained by this author as a result of research entitled ‘The objectives of mediation and the selection and use of mediation strategies and techniques by mediators in civil disputes, including commercial disputes between entrepreneurs’.
This article examines the institutionalization of civil mediation in Israel over the past three decades. Introduced in 1992 via legislative amendment, mediation was gradually integrated into the judicial system through regulations, a court-linked mediation unit, mandatory orientation sessions, and training standards. These reforms strengthened institutional capacity and increased referrals, yet despite these efforts, mediation remains court-dependent, under regulated, and limited in use. Drawing on legal sources, empirical data, and case law, the article critically analyses the Israeli model, highlighting structural and cultural barriers to broader adoption. It argues that successful adoption requires a cultural shift, sustained public investment, and coordinated engagement across sectors. The article offers policy recommendations, including comprehensive legislation, ethical oversight, educational efforts, and data collection. These insights may inform other jurisdictions and invite comparative dialogue on institutional design, the professionalisation of mediation, and mediation as a tool for social reform.
A format that is limited to the general concept of television programmes, being only a specific idea of them, does not enjoy copyright protection. On the other hand, the form of such a concept, already developed into an appropriate form, composed of creative elements that make it up and individualize it, will be subject to copyright from the moment it is established. Such an arrangement may also be made in a television programme based on the format. A television programme created on the basis of the format-work will constitute an audiovisual work within the meaning of copyright law. If such a format is a work of joint authorship, the authors of works contributing to the format established in this programme will also generally be co-authors of the audiovisual work. A format-work and an audiovisual work created on its basis are legally separate objects of protection. Therefore, the acquisition by the producer of the rights to both works also takes place separately.
The article presents mediation as a broader concept, deeply rooted in the principles of democracy. At first glance, it may be difficult to see mediation as a realization of democratic values, and the concepts of mediation and democracy may seem analytically distant. Democracy usually relates to a political system, while mediation involves resolving conflicts between parties in individual situa-tions. However, as the authors explain, the fundamental principles of democracy and mediation—which is a meeting between conflicting parties with the participation of a neutral third party—share significant similarities. The article examines democratic principles such as individual autonomy, the promotion of the com-mon good, the pursuit of consensus, the guarantee of fair procedures, and the shaping of civic atti-tudes in the context of mediation. It demonstrates that the core principles of democracy are reflect-ed in mediation, on a micro level, within the process of resolving individual disputes. The model of deliberative democracy and the concept of "living democracy" or social capital suggest that democ-racy is not solely limited to the functioning of democratic institutions but must also encompass citi-zen participation and inclusion in everyday activities beyond those institutions. This broader under-standing of democracy places mediation at the heart of living democracy. The authors explore the relationship between mediation and democracy through key philosophical concepts: the philosophy of discourse and the philosophy of dialogue. Both, the discursive and dia-logical philosophies serve as foundational elements of democracy. These philosophies also offer a more universal understanding of mediation, not just as a method for reaching an agreement but also as a tool for personal growth, understanding others’ perspectives, and building social bonds. In their analysis, the authors conclude that mediation, as a method of dispute resolution and a plat-form for human interaction, aligns with the model and principles of deliberative democracy.
The development of the use and awareness of civil (business, family) mediation in Poland over the last 20 years of its functioning in the Code of Civil Procedure has shown the multitude of situations that can be encountered in mediated disputes. This raises doubts as to whether the current legal framework of Polish substantive law, regulating the contract of settlement, and procedural law referring to a court settlement and settlement agreement concluded before a mediator, exhausts all possibilities of the parties’ unanimous arrangements made in mediation. It is further influenced by, inter alia, the basis for conducting mediation, the interests of the parties to be reflected in the agreement concluded before a mediator, a legally determined possibility to modify parties’ legal relations, or a form of declaration of will prescribed by law. The article includes an analysis of the above problems, selected by the authors, in light of applicable law, case law and legal texts. It leads to the question whether, at this stage of the development of mediation in Poland, a new normative concept - a mediated settlement agreement should be considered.
There is an undeniable need for decisive actions to advance mediation as a sustainable method within Poland’s dispute resolution framework. Italy’s recent approach serves as a noteworthy example, with the “Cartabia Reform”, enacted through Legislative Decree No. 149 on October 10, 2022, and supplemented by additional decrees, offering actionable insights into the effective promotion of sustainable dispute resolution practices. The Italian experience, marked bysuggests a pathway for Poland to integrate mediation more deeply into its legal system, presenting it as a cost-effective and socially beneficial alternative to traditional litigation. Enacted in late 2022, the reform significantly strengthens mediation to improve access to justice and reduce court congestion, aligning with broader EU goals for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). A core element of the reform is the implementation of robust fiscal incentives. By expanding tax relief—such as exemptions from stamp and registration duties on mediation documents and agreements—the reform provides a significant financial advantage over traditional litigation. This alleviates financial barriers, encouraging broader adoption among individuals and businesses, especially in high-value disputes, promoting mediation as a pragmatic, cost-effective choice. Beyond financial benefits, the reform introduces key procedural updates. These include extending mediation duration, enabling remote participation for greater accessibility, and granting judges the power to refer disputes to mediation even during appeal proceedings. These measures frame mediation as a sustainable process that fosters dialogue and social integration while easing the strain on the judicial system. Italy’s systematic approach, leveraging regulatory improvements and targeted incentives, positions it as a leading EU example. By adopting insights from the Cartabia Reform, Poland can strengthen its legal framework around mediation, achieving both economic efficiency for parties and broader societal benefits in conflict resolution.
The article analyses the institution of a complaint against a mediator in the Polish legal system, recognising it as a key mechanism for ensuring the quality of mediation services in the light of Article 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC. The analysis was supplemented by three distinguished models of disciplinary liability, integrating various solutions in force in the EU Member States. The results indicate that effective mechanisms for quality control of mediators’ work require the implementation of a system of disciplinary responsibility for mediators in order to ensure high ethical and professional standards. In Poland, this system is poorly developed and the regulations in force are incomplete and take the form of quasi-disciplinary responsibility of mediators. The lack of effective disciplinary procedures, limited competences of supervisory bodies and the lack of obligation to comply with codes of ethics undermine the credibility of mediators and trust in mediation. The comparative legal analysis distinguished three models of disciplinary liability of mediators in the EU: centralised, decentralised and hybrid. They differ in their supervisory structure, scope of competences and complaint-handling mechanisms. The conclusions from the conducted analysis emphasise the need to harmonise the regulations in force in Poland, including the introduction of transparent and dedicated complaint procedures and the expansion of the catalogue of sanctions and their effects. Such actions will enable the achievement of the objectives of Article 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC by ensuring the effectiveness of mechanisms for controlling the quality of mediators’ work and strengthening public confidence in mediation.
The presented paper concerns the problem of efficiency in institutional supervision exercised under both company and cooperative law by the supervisory board. The paper also includes an international perspective involving convergence processes between different board systems. The convergence syndrome consists of developing common standards of corporate governance aimed at efficiency, irrespective of board structures. In 2022, the Polish legislator introduced extensive amendments to the regulatory framework, remodelling the legal position of the supervisory board. Despite the fact that the said amendments have been introduced only under company law, there are important arguments for conducting a comparative legal analysis involving both companies and cooperatives. It is unclear how the remodelled regulatory framework fits into the said convergence phenomenon and, eventually, whether the introduced solutions will allow for improvement in the field of corporate governance.
Among the issues raised internationally that relate to the protection of cultural heritage, increasing attention is being paid to the individual responsibility of perpetrators of crimes against cultural property. The aim to harmonise the level of criminal law protection of cultural property in national legal systems is seen as one of the most important factors that could reduce crime in this area. Legislative initiatives undertaken by countries in order to strengthen the criminal law protection of cultural property focus primarily on two groups of problems: the development of a catalogue of offences against cultural property and the determination of the type and amount of sanctions with which these offences should be threatened. In the search for an optimal pattern of penalisation, the article identifies the norms of international law influencing the scope of penalisation of behaviours violating the principles of protection of cultural property in the national legal orders and analyses the legislative achievements so far obtained within the framework of international cooperation at the universal and regional (European) level. The considerations were concentrated around three key issues, which were considered to be: the notion of just punishment, the analysis of the scope of criminal law protection of cultural property set out in the documents of UNESCO and the Council of Europe, and the type and amount of sanctions that should be applied to behaviour directed against cultural property under legal protection. The last part of the article consists of the final conclusions formulated after an autonomous assessment of the regulations adopted in the two systems of international cooperation on the criminal law protection of cultural heritage indicated above.
This paper presents a comparison of the Polish and German models for the utilisation of police body-worn cameras (Polish: kamery nasobne). Three groups of variables were compared: (1) usage policy; (2) situational and social context, and (3) technology. Regarding situational and social context, the circumstances under which body-worn cameras were implemented into police service differed in Poland and Germany. In Poland, the public discourse focused on the use of this technology to reduce the (ab)use of coercive measures by police officers. In Germany, on the other hand, the focus was mainly on the fact that the technology could protect police officers from assaults. Regarding the policy of use and technology, the article compares the models of body-worn camera use in Poland and Germany in the following aspects: the rank and type of legal act (or other document) regulating the use of these devices; the places and areas where events can be recorded; the extent to which events can be recorded by these devices; the retention period of produced recordings; the obligation for an officer to inform a person about the fact of recording an intervention; the integration of these devices and other technologies. German legislation on body-worn cameras is much more detailed than the Polish one in almost every aspect. The Polish legal framework for the use of this technology is, in turn, partly incomplete. The article does not postulate a complete reception of the foreign model into the Polish legal system. However, certain legal solutions could serve as a benchmark or inspiration for the Polish legislator. These could include, e.g., solutions to increase awareness of the fact that police officers use body-worn cameras; to increase the rights of a person who has been recorded with such a camera; to supplement the provisions on the retention period of recordings; to encompass the possibility and potential scope of integrating body-worn cameras with other technologies, such as, for example, automated pattern recognition based on artificial intelligence algorithms. The latter issue remains outside the area of legal regulation in Poland, whereas in Germany, there are some detailed legal solutions in this respect.
