most interesting rulings | In Principle

In procurements, minor errors often creep into the terms of reference or the forms for bids. Can these errors exert negative consequences on contractors? An important statement on this issue was made by the National Appeal Chamber (KIO) in its ruling of 13 March 2020 (KIO 423/20). The chamber stressed that if there are differences between the description of the subject of the contract and the offer form, the description of the subject matter will control, and contractors cannot be penalised for errors committed by the contracting authority in its own documentation.

The number of declarations and documents submitted by contractors during the contract award procedure forced the Parliament to introduce mechanisms to cut red tape. One of the key provisions in this aspect is Art. 26(6) of the Public Procurement Law, the purpose and practical application of which was explained by the National Appeal Chamber in its ruling of 13 March 2020 (KIO 439/20).

Last week a judgment by the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) made headlines around the world after the country’s highest court refused to follow a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The decision attracted strong criticism. Critics accused the BVerfG of going rogue, undermining the EU system and providing support for the anti-EU populist agenda. The BVerfG judgment, although indeed controversial and issued at a difficult time, does not deserve this condemnation. Some of the critics’ unjustified opinions can do more for anti-EU populists than the judgment itself.

On 5 May 2020 the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht or BVerfG) issued a much-noted ruling in a case involving the Public Sector Asset Purchase Programme of the European Central Bank. The judgment has caused a great stir, as the BVerfG expressly refused to comply with a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It was the first such instance in history, but its significance is the opposite of what is attributed to it by opponents of European integration.

The CJEU held that a company that only stores goods without knowing they are counterfeits does not infringe trademarks. So can logistics operators sleep easy? Not really.

Genuine use of a trademark in the EU as a whole may be proved in certain circumstances by showing use of the mark in a single member state.

The award of an in-house procurement satisfying the conditions laid down in Art. 12(1)(a)–(c) of Directive 2014/24/EU is not necessarily consistent with European Union law, the Court of Justice of the European Union held in the judgment of 3 October 2019 in Case C-285/18, Kauno miesto savivaldybè. This ruling is not controversial, nor does it change the principles developed over the years for excluding internal procurement from the regime of the procurement directives. Nonetheless, it gives contractors an additional argument for challenging contracting authorities’ decisions ignoring such basic principles as transparency.

One of the most critical issues captivating banks and their retail borrowers in recent years in Poland has been the future of foreign currency loans, especially those denominated in or indexed to Swiss francs. After the political battle around such loans has settled, the issue is now mainly addressed in court proceedings between borrowers and creditors. A long-awaited judgment was issued by the European Court of Justice on 3 October 2019 and has already been followed by judgments of local Polish courts. Putting aside myths and hopes, we look closer at what may be the actual consequences of the ECJ ruling for all interested parties: borrowers and both primary and secondary creditors.

The Court of Justice has finally resolved the case of an EU trademark displaying an X on the side of a sports shoe. The German company Deichmann SE sought revocation of the registration, claiming there was no genuine use of the mark.

In judgments dated 22 May 2019, the Province Administrative Court in Warsaw issued its first extensive ruling on the condition of possession under the Warsaw Decree. The court held that this condition applied only to the legal successors of the prior owner of the real estate and was a condition for effective filing of a decree application, not granting of the application. And after 1946, this condition became irrelevant.

In the judgment issued on 24 June 2019 in Commission v Poland (Case C-619/18), the Court of Justice held that the law reducing the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court of Poland violated Art. 19 of the Treaty on European Union, which amplifies the principle of the rule of law set forth in Art. 2 of the treaty. Why was this judgment issued?

Sometimes after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, or during the course of litigation, an infringer will replace its disputed name with a new, modified name. But often such changes are unsatisfactory for the plaintiff and are also challenged. Are the defendant’s prior actions and the designations previously used by the defendant relevant to evaluation of the new, modified designation? How to assess a situation where the defendant modifies its name while attempting to maintain continuity with the one it previously used?