Companies filing an application for entry in the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register (“KRS”) as of October 1, 2024 are required to indicate in the application the data necessary to create an electronic delivery address. It will be created automatically, after the data indicated in the application for entry is submitted to the Minister of Digitisation.
For companies entered in the KRS before October 1, 2024, the deadline for creating an electronic delivery address has been postponed until January 1, 2025.
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE E-SERVICE ACT
On 18 November 2020, the Electronic Delivery Act (the ‘Act’) came into force. The main idea of which is to facilitate correspondence with public bodies by replacing the current form of communication (registered letters) with electronic communication.
According to the Act, the final deadline for the implementation of the technical solutions necessary for the use of e-service and, consequently, the mandatory creation of an e-service addressby individual entities, should be determined by a special announcement of the Minister Digitisation in the Official Polish Gazette.
Based on the latest announcement by the Minister of Digitisation (December 21, 2023), the deadline for the implementation of the e-delivery system has been moved from December 30, 2023, to October 1, 2024. As of that date, all companies applying for entry in the KRS Register of Entrepreneurs will be required to indicate the data necessary to create an electronic delivery address. On the other hand, for companies entered in the KRS Register of Entrepreneurs before that date, the deadline for creating an electronic delivery address will expire on January 1, 2025. This is because the law indicates that non-public entities entered into the KRS Register of Entrepreneurs before the date specified in the announcement of the Minister of Digitisation are obliged to implement the above obligation within 3 months from the date specified in the announcement.
It should be recalled that the deadline for the implementation of the e-collateral system has already been postponed several times – the last change took place on November 21, 2023, when the Minister of Digitisation moved the deadline for its implementation from December 10, 2023, to December 30, 2023.
WHAT IS AN E-SERVICE ADDRESS AND HOW TO CREATE ONE
An electronic service address is a digital tool, the main function of which is to be able to transmit correspondence between the entities specified in the Act and a public entity. In practice, it is the electronic equivalent of a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, which is the official way of communication with various offices in Poland.
Also, be sure to designate a delivery box administrator and activate the e-service address in the database of electronic addresses (“BAE“) through the Entrepreneur Account at https://www.biznes.gov.pl/en. Thereafter, the e-service address will be automatically transferred from the BAE to the KRS, without the need to submit a separate application in this regard.
For companies entered in the KRS Register of Entrepreneurs as of October 1, 2024, the address for e-collaterals will be created automatically. After which, the data provided in the application to be entered into the KRS Register of Entrepreneurs is submitted to the Minister of Digitisation.
FAILURE TO CREATE AN E-SERVICE ADDRESS IN TIME
Currently, the provisions of the Act do not provide for a penalty if an obligated entity fails to have an e-service address or fails to register it with the BAE.
However, due to the risk of not receiving correspondence from a public entity electronically, we recommend that the above obligation be fulfilled within the timeframes stipulated by the Act.
Nearly ten years after the presentation of the draft by the European Commission, on November 23, 2022, the European Parliament ratified Directive 2022/2381 of the European Parliament and of the Council, focusing on enhancing the gender balance within the leadership of publicly listed companies and associated measures (the “Directive”). The objective of this Directive is to ensure the effective implementation, across Member States, of the principle of equal opportunities and fair treatment for both women and men within the labour market, encompassing employment conditions and career advancement.
The primary aim of the Directive is to instigate changes in the corporate governance practices of substantial public companies. It mandates Member States to establish procedures that target the attainment of gender balance in executive management roles.
While the incorporation of the Directive into Polish law is slated for December 28, 2024, considering the tenures of corporate bodies, it is advisable to commence taking preliminary measures to amend corporate governance regulations at this time. This proactive approach will enable companies to be well-prepared to realize the gender parity benchmarks specified in the Directive by the middle of 2026.
OBLIGATED ENTITIES AND THEIR NEW OBLIGATIONS
Only public companies will be obliged to implement the established parties, but not all – micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are excluded. In view of the above, listed companies with more than 250 employees and an annual turnover in excess of €50 million or an annual balance sheet total in excess of €43 million will be required to amend their corporate governance rules to include:
a procedure for the selection of members of company bodies based on objective criteria; and
A safeguard mechanism that will give preference to minority candidates in the event of equal qualifications.
The directive aims to address the deficiency in transparency within the process of appointing
candidates for the roles of executive and non-executive directors (who perform management and
supervisory functions, respectively, as defined by the Polish legal system – indicating members of
management boards, and members of supervisory boards or audit committees, respectively). This will be achieved by introducing appropriate and clearly formulated selection criteria for these positions. Companies bound by this requirement will be obligated to equally acknowledge the competencies, knowledge, and skills of candidates, regardless of their gender.
Implementing minimum standards for the selection procedure and the objective, comparative, assessment of candidates’ qualifications is anticipated to result in an improved gender balance in roles crucial to the company’s significant investment and business deliberations.
According to the European Commission’s perspective, the criteria introduced in this manner will
guarantee the transparency of the selection processes. This will enable candidates to be evaluated
impartially based on their individual merits, irrespective of gender.
Simultaneously, if the outcome of the ‘test of competence, knowledge, and skills’ is identical for
candidates of both genders, the company will be required to offer the position to the candidate of the gender that is less represented.
Furthermore, upon request from an unsuccessful candidate, the company is obligated to provide the criteria that formed the basis of the selection process, along with an objective comparative evaluation of candidates based on those criteria. Additionally, the specific considerations that ultimately led to the selection of the non-underrepresented candidate must be disclosed in the particular scenario. The Directive also mandates Member States to establish an appeal mechanism, allowing a challenge against the company’s decision, to be presented before a court or another competent authority.
PARITY REQUIRED
Gender equality constitutes one of the fundamental rights safeguarded by EU law and is accorded
specialized protection. EU institutions are entrusted with advancing equitable economic autonomy for individuals of all genders, reducing the gender wage gap, changing the gender equilibrium in decision-making roles, and fostering the equitable distribution of caregiving responsibilities.
However, the uneven distribution of women and men across distinct labour market sectors remains an ongoing concern. In May 2023, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) released data showing the count of women and men holding pivotal decision-making positions. This information is segmented by industry, yet in each sector, a notable gap can be observed between the representation of women and men in significant economic decision-making roles. In 2023, women accounted for only 34% of leadership roles made up of CEOs, board members, or employee representatives within the largest public enterprises.
As stipulated by the Directive, large public companies are mandated to achieve certain thresholds by 30 June 2026. Either a minimum of 40% of non-executive director positions, involving supervisory responsibilities, or a minimum of 33% of all directorial positions, encompassing both non-executive and executive directors, must be filled by individuals of the underrepresented gender. Consequently, corporations are compelled to synchronize the composition of their supervisory or audit committees and boards of directors with the ratios mentioned above by mid-2026. The discretion to select which of the mentioned thresholds will be applicable in their respective Member States is vested in the hands of national legislators.
MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES
Furthermore, the Directive introduces an imperative regarding reporting. Member States are obliged to submit annual reports to pertinent EU authorities concerning gender representation within boards of public companies. These reports must differentiate between executive and non-executive directors. Member States are also obligated to furnish information about any initiatives undertaken to fulfil the prescribed top-down gender parity. In parallel, public companies will be mandated to make the aforementioned information readily accessible on their websites.
While the Directive does not suggest specific penalties for non-compliance, it delegates this authority to Member States to formulate a compendium of measures applicable in cases where obligated entities violate the regulations enshrined in national law. Nonetheless, the Directive stipulates that the repercussions for transgressing established norms must be effectual, commensurate, and discouraging. Given these requisites, it is plausible that these sanctions might encompass pecuniary penalties (monetary fines) and may extend to more substantial actions such as the potential revocation or annulment of decisions made by authorities within a public company.
TIME AVAILABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
To expedite the attainment of gender equilibrium while allowing ample time for public companies to make necessary preparations, Member States are required to implement the Directive by 28 December 2024. By no later than 30 June 2026, significant public companies are expected to have integrated appropriate quotas. This makes it even more important to consider preliminary actions at present.
As a reminder, the existing Best Practices for WSE Listed Companies 2021, which public companies listed on the WSE have committed to adhere to, and dictate the requirements for these companies to adopt a diversity policy governing the constitution of their management and supervisory boards. Consequently, public companies are mandated to define diversity objectives and criteria spanning aspects such as gender, education, expertise, age, or professional background. Pertaining to gender diversity, the condition established by the Best Practices for WSE Listed Companies 2021 is that the underrepresented gender should constitute no less than 30% of the respective board.
Legal Basis: Directive (EU) 2022/2381 of the European Parliament and of the Council, dated 23 November 2022, regarding the enhancement of gender balance among directors of publicly listed companies, along with associated measures.
On 16 August 2008, the Polish Parliament adopted an Act amending the Commercial Companies Code. The amendment provides, inter alia, for the introduction into Polish law of provisions on cross-border transformations and cross-border divisions of companies within the Member States of the European Union. The provisions amending the Commercial Companies Code will enter into force on 15 September 2023.
The amendment implements the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border transformations, mergers and divisions of companies (the “Directive”).
LEGAL POSITION PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT
As it stands, the Polish Commercial Companies Code contains provisions on cross-border mergers but lacks a comprehensive regime for cross-border reorganisations involving transformations or divisions.
Furthermore, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 October 2017 in the case of the Polish company Polbud-Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o. on liquidation (C-106/16), the current provisions of the Commercial Companies Code constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment which has been established by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as they make the transfer of the registered office of a Polish company to another Member State conditional on the company in question being wound up.
NEW RULES FOR CROSS-BORDER MERGERS AND DIVISIONS
The amendment to the Commercial Companies Code will introduce two new types of cross-border operations into the Polish law: cross-border transformation and cross-border division of companies in accordance with the Directive.
According to the enacted legislation, a cross-border transformation is the transformation of a Polish limited liability company, joint-stock company, or limited joint-stock partnership into a foreign company governed by the laws of an EU member state. This transformation takes place with the simultaneous transfer of its registered office to that member state, while retaining its legal personality.
The permissible foreign legal forms into which a Polish company may convert are listed in Annex 2 to the Directive. Using Germany as an example, a Polish limited liability company, joint-stock company, or limited partnership, may convert into a German GmbH, AG or KGaA, to the exclusion of the other types of companies as defined by German law.
The effect of a cross-border conversion is to transfer the registered office of a Polish company to another Member State and change its legal form to a foreign one while maintaining its legal personality (on the basis of its continued operation).
On the other hand, the cross-border division will consist in the division of a Polish limited liability company, joint-stock company, or limited joint-stock partnership into two or more companies governed by the laws of an EU member state, provided that at least two of the companies involved in the division are governed by the laws of different member states.
The new rules on cross-border divisions – following the proposed model in the Directive – cover only cases of cross-border divisions by transferring all or part of the assets of a Polish company being divided to a company or companies newly established in another Member State. On the other hand, they do not provide for cross-border divisions involving the transfer of all or part of the assets of a Polish company being divided and distributed to a company or companies already established in another Member State.
The permitted foreign legal forms of companies created as a result of a cross-border division are listed in Annex 2 to the Directive. Using Germany as an example, a Polish limited liability company, joint stock company or limited partnership could transfer its assets in a cross-border division to a newly formed German GmbH, AG or KGaA, to the exclusion of the other types of company defined by German law.
A cross-border division results in the transfer of all the assets of the divided company to a newly established foreign company (or the acquiring companies) based on universal succession, with the loss of the legal existence of the divided company (in the case of a complete division). On the other hand, a partial demerger results in the transfer of a part of the assets of the demerged company to a newly established foreign company (or the acquiring companies) based on a partial universal succession, while the Polish demerged company retains its legal existence.
Unfortunately, the juxtaposition of the proposed Polish regulations and provisions of the Directive raises doubts as to whether a simple Polish joint-stock company may be subject to a cross-border conversion or division.
A key moment in any cross-border conversion and division will be the issuing of a certificate of admissibility of the conversion or division by the court of the country of the converted or divided company. Until the certificate is issued, the procedure and formalities relating to the transformation or division are governed by the law of the country in which the transformed or divided company is based in at the moment. On the other hand, once the certificate has been obtained, further requirements and formalities will be governed by the law of the country in which the transformed or acquiring company is based in.
Furthermore, in line with the provisions of the Directive, the proposed Polish legislation provides for a prohibition on the invalidation of cross-border transformations and divisions. After the date of the conversion or the date of the demerger, it will not be possible to revoke or declare invalid the resolution on the cross-border conversion or the resolution on the cross-border demerger, nor will it be possible to dissolve the Company in accordance with Section 21 of the Companies Act.
OTHER AMENDMENTS
This amendment to the Commercial Companies Code also provides for changes to the current rules on cross-border mergers and the rules on domestic mergers, demergers, and transformations.
Of particular interest in this respect is the planned addition of a new type of division, namely division by demerger, which consists of the transfer of part of the assets of the company being divided to one or more existing or newly established companies in exchange for shares in the company or companies being acquired by the company being divided. This is an unknown solution in Polish law, which corresponds to the German division by demerger (“Ausgliederung”) provided for in Article 123(3) of the Transformation Act (Umwandlungsgesetz).
If you have any questions, the members of the WKB German Desk who specialise in corporate law, in particular, corporate reorganisations are available to assist – Anna Wojciechowska, Anna Fennig, Igor Socha.
Legal Alert is avaliable to download in English and German versions.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, Ukraine is fiercely defending its freedom and sovereignty both on the battlefield and on economic and social fronts. The war continues, but with faith in victory, legislators in Ukraine are continuing to work on improving legislation. With a specific focus on urban planning with the understanding of the need to rebuild Ukraine in future.
What changes should foreign companies be aware of if they are planning on participating in the rebuilding of Ukraine?
URBAN PLANNING REFORM
This refers to the extensive draft law No. 5655, which was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in December 2022 and has been awaiting the signature of the President of Ukraine since then (document available HERE).
The draft law has caused a lot of controversy within local government as well as broader society, due to the significant deprivation of controlling function of the authorities and the transfer of these functions to private hands. The initiators of the draft law refer to the need to eliminate corruption in the governmental bodies, while broader society activists believe that there is a lobby of large developers.
Among the main changes:
the possibility of establishing land easements for underground parts of the land is introduced. This will provide more opportunities for developers and is especially relevant considering the need to provide bomb shelters; and
the power(s) of local authorities to issue permits for construction work has been significantly limited, which is aimed at eliminating corruption; and
private companies will be empowered to carry out urban planning control. The initiators of the project thus realize the goal of eliminating corruption in the ranks of the authorized bodies; and
in order to carry out their activities, authorized companies in the field of urban planning control must conclude a contract of civil liability insurance. The amounts are as follows:
3 million euros for objects that, according to the class of consequences (liability), belong to objects with either medium (CC2); and
5 million euros for objects with high (CC3) consequences.
This means that in case of an insured event, the insurance company will have to pay the specified amounts, but also indicates that access to the market will be open only to big players; and
the entire process from obtaining town planning conditions to putting the object into operation is to become digitized and transparent. For this, the Unified State Electronic System was created. Every citizen can see documents related to each object, and courts are obliged to indicate the registration number of the object in this system in their decisions.
Should be mentioned, that the text of the draft law has already been amended much since the first reading, and currently we have no understanding of the final version of the document, if signed by the President.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (PPPS) IN UKRAINE
PPPs are widely used in Europe but are not in great demand in Ukraine. The legal basis for PPPs in Ukraine is the legislation “On Public-Private Partnerships”. According to the current law:
Foreign investors can participate in PPPs, but if they win the tender, they must start a legal entity (subsidiary) in Ukraine to conclude a cooperation agreement.
There is a free choice in respect of a dispute resolution mechanism (it can also be an international arbitration located abroad). There are other stated guarantees contained in the Law, which may reduce the concerns of foreign private partners about the need to establish a company in Ukraine in order to enter into a PPP agreement.
The PPP mechanism is well regulated and detailed in Ukrainian legislation, but the shortcomings are the length of the procedure and bureaucratic obstacles.
Currently, this mechanism is also subject to reform. The PPP reform was presented in Lugano in July 2022 as part of the Ukraine Modernization Plan.
The key objective of the reform is to simplify the procedure and reduce the time required to prepare projects. The current status of this piece of legislation (draft law available HERE) is “adopted as a basis”. It is expected to pass the 2nd reading, then be signed by the President and published.
We are following the process and expect the reformed legislation around PPPs to be introduced and to instil confidence in foreign investors looking to do business in Ukraine.
MORATORIUM ON CROSS-BORDER TRANSFERS IN UKRAINE
On 24.02.2022, the National Bank of Ukraine introduced a moratorium on cross-border transfers while Martial Law is in place.
Ukrainian banks are prohibited from making cross-border transfers of funds from accounts in Ukraine to accounts of non-resident banks in Ukraine, both in hryvnia and in foreign currency, except in the way described in the Resolution.
In the context of payments for construction goods/services, it is worth noting that there is a List of Critical Imports (resolution available HERE), which includes items that can be imported into Ukraine and are not subject to the moratorium, i.e. such goods/services can be paid for freely from Ukraine.
Thus, in order to safely deliver, for example, construction goods to Ukraine and receive payment for them, it is necessary to check whether the good(s) in question is on the authorized List of Critical Imports. The list is quite extensive, but it is still advisable to check and even confirm the information with the Customs Service. It must be noted that the List is constantly being amended; during the ongoing war, there have already been 30 amendments to the list.
Effective from 16.06.2023, said Resolution was amended in such a way that the restriction does not apply to the transfer of funds to fulfil debt obligations to a non-resident under a loan/borrowing/reimbursable financial aid if such a loan is granted with the participation of an MFI or with the participation of a foreign export credit agency (for example, KUKE) or a foreign state through an authorized person or bank (if the state is a shareholder of it).
On 20.06.2023, another amendment was made to expand the “window of opportunity” for cross-border transfers of funds from Ukraine.
In particular, the prohibition does not apply to cross-border money transfer transactions within the framework of fulfilling obligations under a loan received by a resident of Ukraine from a non-resident, while the following conditions are met:
the loan is to be transferred to the resident’s current account in a Ukrainian bank after June 20, 2023; and
the amount of the currency transaction [except for the transfer of funds to repay the loan amount] does not exceed the value of payments at the maximum interest rate (12% per annum); and
for a loan received by a resident borrower for a period not exceeding three years, the transfer of funds to fulfil obligations under the relevant agreement is carried out only at the expense of the borrower’s own (not purchased and not obtained from a resident) funds in foreign currency; and
for a loan received by a resident borrower with a loan period of more than three years, during the first three years from the date of receipt of the loan amount, the transfer of funds to repay the principal amount of the loan is carried out only at the expense of the borrower’s own (not purchased and not obtained from the resident) funds in a foreign currency. The payment of interest, commissions, and fees under the relevant loan may also be made by the resident borrower at the expense of foreign currency purchased on his behalf.
The bank is responsible for monitoring compliance with the maximum payment amounts.
CONCLUSION
In general, Ukraine has launched a large-scale process of legislative improvement aimed at simplifying and accelerating the processes required to restore damaged infrastructure facilities affected by the military aggression of the Russian Federation. The amendments intend to increase economic stability, strengthen guarantees for business, improve transparency of all processes, and eliminate corruption.
If you have any questions or need additional advice, please do not hesitate to contact Hanna Yankovska from the WKB’s Eastern Desk team.
On 29 March 2023, The European Commission adopted a draft Directive on further expanding and upgrading the use of digital tools and processes in company law (the “Directive”). The Directive aims to facilitate cross-border activities of companies by:
reducing bureaucracy and administrative burdens, in particular when setting up subsidiaries or branches in other Member States of the European Union; and
increasing transparency and therefore increasing confidence in cross-border entrepreneurs.
These objectives are to be achieved through the introduction of digital tools to facilitate the cross-border activities of companies, i.e., an EU Company Certificate containing basic company information and a multilingual and a standardised EU template for a digital power of attorney that will recognised by all Member States.
In addition, the Directive will introduce a so-called ‘once-only principle’, whereby companies setting up branches or subsidiaries in other Member States will not have to report their own data, previously disclosed in national business registers, to the registers of those countries. This data will be exchanged through the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), which will be connected with the Business Registers of Beneficiaries Interconnection System (BORIS) and the Insolvency Register Interconnection (IRI) and as a result, will contain more information about companies.
The requirement to obtain apostilled documentation will also be abolished regarding certified true copies of documents and information on companies obtained from registers or notarial deeds as well as additional information on companies obtained from registers or notarial deeds.
According to the European Commission, the proposed digital tools and processes are intended to facilitate cross-border expansion for small and medium-sized companies, which typically do not have the financial and administrative resources of large companies and thus currently find it more difficult to operate across borders.
The draft Directive is currently being discussed in the European Parliament and Council. If it is adopted and the Directive enters into force, Member States will have two years to implement its provisions in national law.
ONCE-ONLY PRINCIPLE
The main objective of the Directive is to facilitate the establishment of subsidiaries and branches in other Member States. According to the European Commission, the reduction of formalities for the use of company information in cross-border situations is expected to make business expansion abroad less time-consuming and more cost-effective.
This ‘answer’ to existing problems of companies is to be called the ‘once-only principle’, wherebycompanies would not have to submit to another Member State information and data which they have already submitted into a national business register. For example, if a Polish company wished to open a subsidiary or branch in another Member State, it would not have to submit to the authorities of another member state its data and information which is already contained in the register of entrepreneurs of the National Court Register (the Polish equivalent in this case). This is because, according to the ‘once-only principle’, the register of the Member State in which a subsidiary or branch of a parent company registered in another EU country is to be established should receive such information electronically from the register of the Member State in which the parent company is registered, using the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS). In addition, national business registers will be obliged to make the information they collect available to any authority, entity or person empowered under national law to deal with any aspect of the establishment of a subsidiary or branch.
The adoption of the Directive is also designed to ensure that the information held regarding companies available in the various Member States is comparable and that relevant company information can be found at EU level without having to consult national registers. The interconnection of national registers with the EU BRIS will not only facilitate searches for company information from other Member States but will also reduce the need for companies to submit documents containing information already held in an EU register.
In addition, the interconnection of the national registers will remove the current issue of the registration documents a company information only being available in the original language that it was submitted in. It aims to provide the data in any official language of the European Union without the need for additional translations.
NEW DIGITAL TOOLS: EU COMPANY CERTIFICATE AND UNIFIED POWER OF ATTORNEY
The facilitation of the cross-border activities of companies is to be achieved through the introduction of the following digital tools:
a standardised EU company certificate; and
a standardised multilingual template for the issuance of an EU digital power of attorney.
The Commission stresses that companies should be able to prove with simple and reliable tools recognised across borders by all Member States that they were incorporated in one of them. One such tool is a digital EU company certificatecontaining basic company information (to be made available in all official EU languages). Companies will be able to use it for a variety of purposes, including for administrative procedures before national authorities or court proceedings in other Member States, as well as before the European Union institutions and bodies.
The EU Company Certificate will be issued both at the request of the company concerned and at the request of third parties. Member States will be able to charge a fee for this, but companies should be able to obtain their own certificate at least once a year free of charge.
The certificate should be recognised in all EU Member States as conclusive proof of a company’s incorporation and confirmation of its details.
Another digital tool to facilitate the cross-border activities of companies is to be an EU standardised digital power of attorney, which is to be produced in a multilingual EU template. Companies operating across borders will be able to use it to authorise a person to represent them. It will contain the minimum mandatory information. Such a power of attorney should be drawn up and revoked in accordance with national legal and formal requirements. It will only be in digital form and will be authenticated by qualified electronic signature(s).
A company wishing to use an EU power of attorney will be required to file it in the business register. This will allow third parties who demonstrate a legitimate legal interest to consult it through the relevant register. This tool may be useful for notaries, credit and financial institutions, and competent authorities or lawyers who will be able to confirm the existence of a digital power of attorney in this way.
The EU digital power of attorney will be recognised in all EU Member States as proof of a person’s authority to represent a company in the manner specified in this document.
EXEMPTION FROM THE OBLIGATION TO LEGALISE DOCUMENTS
The Directive is also intended to oblige Member States to ensure that e.g. copies of documents certified by business registers as true copies of the original or notarial deeds and administrative documents, are exempt from any form of legalisation or similar formality.
Before using one of the above-mentioned documents in another Member State, cross-border entities will not have to obtain an apostille, i.e., an official certification of the national document confirming the signature and the nature in which the person who signed it acted. This exemption from legalisation is to be extended to those documents which are needed for the establishment of companies and the registration of their branches in another EU Member State, as well as for cross-border transformations, mergers, and divisions.
The exemption from the need to legalise documents will significantly speed up all processes related to the cross-border activities of companies, including those related to the establishment of subsidiaries or branches in other EU Member States.
EXEMPTION FROM CERTIFIED TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS
The founding documents of companies, especially those belonging to cross-border groups or with operations in several countries, are often drafted in at least two languages. One of these is often a commonly understood official language of the European Union (e.g., English). In addition, it is not uncommon for companies to voluntarily publish a translation of their articles of association into such a language on their website.
In view of the above, and the fact that company data is to be stored in the registers in a machine-translatable format, the requirement to obtain certified translations of the articles of association and other documents in the business register is to be limited to those deemed necessary by Member States. By way of example, Member States will still be able to require certified translations of the above documents in the context of court proceedings.
IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY AND TIMELINESS OF INFORMATION ON COMPANIES AVAILABLE AT THE EU LEVEL
The Directive is also intended to lead to greater transparency and trust in traders operating across borders. This is to be achieved by ensuring that data on companies is more accurate, up-to-date, and reliable in national business registers, which will also be accessible at EU level through the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS).
Currently, there are different approaches across Member States as to how to verify company information entered in national registers in terms of accuracy, reliability, and timeliness. This results in insufficient cross-border trust in such data and situations where documents or company information from a register in one Member State are not accepted as evidence in another Member State. The Directive will therefore harmonise the way in which data and information reported by companies to national business registers will be verified. Member States will be obliged to carry out a preventive administrative or judicial control of articles of association and statutes of companies, as well as any modification of these documents, for their legality. Such checks will include verifying that these documents contain all the information required by law and that cash payments or contributions in kind have been made in accordance with national law.
In the Commission’s view, such an improvement in the reliability of the information on companies available in the registers will enable it to be used more fully in cross-border administrative procedures and judicial proceedings.
In addition, the Directive will require companies to confirm once a calendar year that the information about them disclosed in the business register is up to date. Companies will have to confirm their information regardless of whether they have made any changes requiring notification to the register. The Commission proposes that companies could comply with this obligation when they notify changes to the register or file accounting documents.
To keep the information about companies in the registers up to date, it is also important to identify companies that no longer meet the requirements to continue to be registered in the business registers. The Directive will oblige EU Member States to introduce appropriate procedures to verify the status of companies. The verification procedures should include the possibility for companies to explain their situation and provide supporting data. It should also ensure that the status of the company is properly updated, in particular by disclosing information concerning its closure, liquidation, dissolution, or continuation of business. Those procedures should also include the possibility, as a last resort, of removing a company from the register in accordance with the procedures laid down by national law.
In addition, the EU BRIS is to be connected to:
(1) the Beneficial Ownership Registers Interconnection System (BORIS), which interconnects national central registers containing information on beneficial owners of companies and other legal persons, trusts, and other types of legal arrangements; and
(2) the Insolvency Register Interconnection (IRI).
This integration will allow easier and faster access to a wide range of company data, particularly relevant to their counterparties. A great simplification will undoubtedly be the possibility to search for them in a single register, i.e., BRIS.
As a consequence, the new regulations are expected to lead to a more complete protection of third parties using information about companies, in particular those operating cross-border, and to contribute to the fight against fraud and abuse, and thus to the proper functioning of the single market.
NEW NOTIFIABLE INFORMATION
The Directive will also oblige companies to disclose certain additional information and data in their business registers. Among other things, companies will be obliged to provide information in which EU Member State or third country their central management or head office of main enterprise is located, if it is not the Member State of the registered office.
The draft EU Directive would also require companies to disclose information relating to the capital group to which they belong. This is to enable the visualisation of capital group structures, ensure transparency, and increase the trust of the business environment as well as contribute to the effective detection of fraud and abuse. The obligation to disclose information about capital group structures will apply to both domestic and cross-border capital groups.
Relevant information about the capital group is to be reported in both parent and subsidiary registers, with ultimate parent undertakings governed by the law of a Member State being required to disclose basic information about all subsidiaries in their national registers. In particular, they are to include the name and legal form of each subsidiary and their country of incorporation with their registration number.
Where the ultimate parent company is governed by the law of a third country, the obligation referred to above will be transferred to the subsidiary closest to the ultimate parent in the chain of control but located in the European Union and governed by the law of a Member State.
In addition, the ultimate parent company in the group of companies, or the subsidiary company established in the European Union closest to the ultimate parent company in the chain of control (where the parent companies are governed by the law of a third country), will be required to update the group information at least annually. This can be no later than the date of disclosure of the accounting documents. In addition, each subsidiary will be independently responsible for updating the information on its group membership in its relevant register based on the information provided by the parent companies.
This information will also be made available directly at the Union level through the system of interconnected registers.
SUMMARY
The solutions proposed by the European Commission in the draft Directive will facilitate the activities of companies that have their registered office in the European Union, in particular in the cross-border dimension. The proposals for the introduction of the ‘once–only principle’, the exemption of some documents from the obligation of legalisation, and the introduction of digital tools, i.e., an EU company certificate and a model EU power of attorney, should be regarded as beneficial. These solutions will allow cross-border business to be conducted in a more informal manner and will alleviate some of the administrative burden that is currently in place.
However, this Directive is only at the draft stage and will now be debated in the European Parliament and the Council. If adopted, Member States will have two years to implement it.
We will keep you informed about the further development of this Directive and its final form.
Legal basis: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL dated 29 March 2023 amending Directives 2009/102/EC and (EU) 2017/1132 as regards further expanding and upgrading the use of digital tools and processes in company law.
Should you have any questions regarding the issues presented, please contact our lawyers in the corporate law and corporate governance team: Anna Wojciechowska, Anna Fennig, Anna Oleś, and Igor Socha.
Am 1. Juli 2023 endete zum ersten Mal seit 2020 der von der Regierung ausgerufene Pandemiezustand auf dem Gebiet Polens.
Damit sind bestimmte Regelungen ausgelaufen, die eingeführt wurden, um Unternehmen vor den Folgen der durch die COVID-Pandemie ausgelösten Störungen des Wirtschaftslebens zu schützen.
Eine der Regelungen, die gerade ausgelaufen ist, ist die Aussetzung der Verpflichtung, innerhalb von 30 Tagen nach Eintritt der Zahlungsunfähigkeit einen Insolvenzantrag zu stellen, sofern die Zahlungsunfähigkeit auf die COVID-Pandemie zurückzuführen ist.
Folglich sind die Geschäftsführer bzw. Vorstandsmitglieder polnischer Unternehmen, die infolge der COVID-Pandemie zahlungsunfähig geworden sind und keinen entsprechenden Insolvenzantrag gestellt haben, verpflichtet, bis zum 30. Juli 2023 die Insolvenz ihres Unternehmens zu melden. Geschäftsführer bzw. Vorstandsmitglieder, die es unterlassen, riskieren zivil-, straf-, steuer- und verwaltungsrechtliche Konsequenzen.
Was sollten Geschäftsführer/Vorstände in Polen in diesem Zusammenhang wissen und tun? Welche praktischen Auswirkungen könnte dies für diejenigen haben, die in Polen Geschäfte machen?
INSOLVENZPRÜFUNGEN NACH POLNISCHEM RECHT
Das polnische Insolvenz- und Sanierungsrecht sieht zwei verschiedene Insolvenztests zur Prüfung der Zahlungsunfähigkeit eines Schuldners:
Der Schuldner ist nicht mehr in der Lage, seine Geldschulden bei Fälligkeit zu begleichen (Liquiditätsinsolvenztest);
Der Liquiditätsinsolvenztest ist der wichtigste Test für die Zahlungsunfähigkeit eines Schuldners, der sowohl für natürliche als auch für juristische Personen gilt.
Es wird vermutet, dass ein Schuldner nicht mehr in der Lage ist, seine Geldschulden bei Fälligkeit zu begleichen, wenn der Verzug bei der Zahlung s drei Monate überschreitet.
oder
Die Geldschulden übersteigen den Wert der Aktiva während eines ununterbrochenen Zeitraums von mehr als vierundzwanzig Monaten (Bilanzinsolvenztest).
Der Bilanzinsolvenztest ist nur auf juristische Personen (einschließlich Kapital- und Personengesellschaften) anwendbar.
Es wird vermutet, dass die Verbindlichkeiten des Schuldners sein Vermögen übersteigen, wenn die Bilanzverbindlichkeiten (ohne Finanzrücklagen und Verbindlichkeiten gegenüber verbundenen Unternehmen) den Wert der Aktiva des Schuldners übersteigen und dieser Zustand länger als vierundzwanzig Monate andauert. Bei dem Bilanzinsolvenztest werden u. a. künftige Verbindlichkeiten und Verbindlichkeiten gegenüber den Gesellschaftern oder Aktionären, die sich aus einem Darlehen oder einem anderen Rechtsgeschäft mit ähnlicher Wirkung aus den letzten fünf Jahren ergeben, nicht mitgerechnet.
INSOLVENZBEZOGENE VERPFLICHTUNGEN DER GESCHÄFTSFÜHRER BZW. VORSTANDSMITGLIEDER POLNISCHER GESELLSCHAFTEN UND DIE DAMIT VERBUNDENE HAFTUNG
Pflicht zur fristgerechten Stellung eines Insolvenzantrags
Ein Schuldner, bei dem es sich um einen Unternehmer handelt, ist verpflichtet, innerhalb von 30 (dreißig) Tagen nach Eintritt seiner Zahlungsunfähigkeit einen Insolvenzantrag zu stellen (bei juristischen Personen muss einer der beiden Insolvenztests erfüllt sein).
Im Falle der juristischen Personen in Polen obliegt die Pflicht, innerhalb der genannten Frist einen Insolvenzantrag zu stellen, jedem Mitglied der Geschäftsführung bzw. des Vorstands der Gesellschaft, und zwar unabhängig davon, ob es direkt an der laufenden Geschäftsführung des Unternehmens beteiligt ist oder ob die Zuständigkeiten unter den Geschäftsführern bzw. den Vorstandsmitgliedern der Gesellschaft intern aufgeteilt sind.
Im Gegensatz zu anderen Rechtsordnungen lässt der polnische Gesetzgeber den Geschäftsführern/Vorstandsmitgliedern keinen Spielraum, sich der Anmeldung zu entziehen, wenn sie vernünftigerweise davon ausgehen können, dass die Fortsetzung der Geschäftstätigkeit der Gesellschaft den Gläubigern nicht zum Nachteil gereichen wird oder dass die Zahlungsfähigkeit langfristig wiederhergestellt wird.
Haftung für die Schulden der Gesellschaft und für Schäden, die den Gläubigern zugefügt werden
Die Geschäftsführer einer polnischen Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung und die Vorstände einer einfachen Aktiengesellschaft können persönlich für die Schulden der Gesellschaft haften, wenn sich die Vollstreckung gegen die Gesellschaft als unwirksam erweist, es sei denn, sie weisen nach, dass (i) rechtzeitig ein Insolvenzantrag gestellt wurde oder alternativ das Sanierungsverfahren innerhalb dieser Frist eröffnet wurde, (ii) sie kein Verschulden an der verspäteten Antragstellung hatten oder (iii) den Gläubigern des Unternehmens trotz Nichterfüllung der Insolvenzantragspflicht kein Schaden entstanden ist.
Darüber hinaus kann das Versäumnis, rechtzeitig einen Insolvenzantrag zu stellen, auch die Haftung gegenüber den Gläubigern des Schuldners für Schäden auslösen. Diese Art der Haftung gilt für die Mitglieder der Geschäftsführung bzw. des Vorstands aller Gesellschaften. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass der Schaden eines Gläubigers dem Wert seiner unbefriedigten Forderung entspricht.
Haftung für Steuern und Sozialversicherungsbeiträge
Darüber hinaus können die Mitglieder der Geschäftsführung bzw. des Vorstands einer polnischen Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, einer einfachen Aktiengesellschaft oder einer Aktiengesellschaft für die Steuer- und Sozialversicherungsrückstände der von ihnen geleiteten Gesellschaft haften, wenn sich die Vollstreckung in das Vermögen der Gesellschaft als teilweise unwirksam erweist, es sei denn, sie weisen nach, dass (i) der Insolvenzantrag rechtzeitig gestellt wurde oder alternativ das Sanierungsverfahren zu diesem Zeitpunkt eröffnet wurde; oder (ii) sie kein Verschulden an der verspäteten Antragstellung trifft.
Es ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Verwaltungsgerichte, die über die Haftung der Mitglieder der Geschäftsführung bzw. des Vorstands für öffentliche Abgaben entscheiden, eine weitaus strengere Rechtsauslegung zugunsten der Interessen der öffentlichen Hand vornehmen.
Ein Geschäftsführer bzw. Vorstandsmitglied kann von der Haftung befreit werden, wenn er den zuständigen Behörden jene Vermögenswerte der Gesellschaft mitteilt, die für eine erfolgreiche Befriedigung eines überwiegenden Teils der öffentlichen Abgaben verwendet werden können, was in der Praxis äußerst selten möglich ist.
Strafrechtliche und quasi-strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit für eine fehlende oder verspätete Insolvenzanmeldung
Stellt ein Geschäftsführer bzw. Vorstandsmitglied den Insolvenzantrag nicht rechtzeitig, kann es zur strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit des Geschäftsführers bzw. Vorstandsmitglieds und/oder eines Liquidators der Gesellschaft nach dem Handelsgesellschaftsgesetzbuch, dem Strafgesetzbuch bzw. unter bestimmten Umständen nach dem Steuerstrafgesetzbuch führen. Zu den möglichen Strafen gehören Geldstrafen, Freiheitseinschränkungen oder sogar Freiheitsstrafen. Bisher wurden allerdings strafrechtliche Sanktionen gegen Manager, die ihre insolvenzrechtlichen Pflichten verletzten, nicht häufig verhängt.
Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass das polnische Strafgesetzbuch auch eine Reihe von Straftaten vorsieht, die im Zusammenhang mit der Insolvenz begangen werden können, wie z. B. betrügerische Vermögensübertragungen oder selektive Rückzahlung von Schulden. Diese dürfen die Geschäftsführer bzw. Vorstandsmitglieder, die in der Notlage vor der Insolvenzanmeldung nach Auswegen suchen, nicht außer Acht lassen.
Darüber hinaus kann eine verspätete Antragstellung eine quasi strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Geschäftsführer bzw. Vorstandsmitglieder auslösen, indem ihnen für 1 bis 10 Jahre gerichtlich verboten wird, eine Geschäftstätigkeit auszuüben oder als Mitglied der Geschäftsführung/des Vorstands und/oder des Aufsichtsrats von juristischen Personen tätig zu sein.
Scheingeschäftsführer (Shadow directors)
Das polnische Recht kennt das Konzept eines Scheingeschäftsführers nicht. Hier gibt es lediglich die Ausnahme, dass eine Person, die das Vermögen eines Schuldners tatsächlich verwaltet und wesentlich dazu beiträgt , dass ein Insolvenzantrag nicht innerhalb der gesetzlichen Frist gestellt wird, quasi strafrechtlich haftbar gemacht werden kann (Verbot der Ausübung einer Geschäftstätigkeit).
AUSSETZUNG DER INSOLVENZANMELDUNG WEGEN COVID
Durch Ausbruch der COVID-19-Pandemie im Jahr 2020 wurden spezifische Regelungen in das polnische Recht eingeführt, um Unternehmen vor den schwerwiegenden Folgen der Pandemie zu schützen. Hierzu gehörte eine begrenzte Aussetzung der Insolvenzanmeldepflicht.
Die 30-tägige Insolvenzantragsfrist für Schuldner, deren Zahlungsunfähigkeit (i) während des von der Regierung verkündeten Zustands der Epidemie oder der epidemischen Bedrohung und (ii) als Folge von COVID-19 eintrat, wurde bis zur Aufhebung des Zustands der Epidemie und der epidemischen Bedrohung auf dem Gebiet Polens ausgesetzt (dann würde die 30-tägige Antragsfrist wieder erneut laufen).
Der von der Regierung ausgerufene Zustand der epidemischen Bedrohung endete am 30. Juni 2023, was bedeutet, dass die Geschäftsführer bzw. Vorstandsmitglieder polnischer Gesellschaften, die bis Ende Juni 2023 unter Berufung auf die Ausnahmeregelung zahlungsunfähig geworden sind, bis zum 30. Juli 2023 Zeit haben, die Insolvenz anzumelden, um persönlicher Haftung zu entgehen.
Es ist schwer festzustellen, wie viele Manager sich bewusst dafür entschieden haben, den entsprechenden Insolvenzantrag nicht zu stellen. Die Prämissen für die Verschiebung des Antrags ließen Zweifel an ihrer Anwendung in komplexeren Fällen aufkommen, in denen die COVID-Pandemie nicht der einzige Grund für die Insolvenz sein könnte.
Da die Insolvenz jedoch während des von der Regierung ausgerufenen epidemischen Zustands bzw. der epidemischen Bedrohung eingetreten ist, wird davon ausgegangen, dass sie auf die COVID-Pandemie zurückzuführen ist. Dies bietet allen Geschäftsführern bzw. Vorstandsmitgliedern polnischer Unternehmen, die (bewusst oder unbewusst) innerhalb von 30 Tagen ab Insolvenz der Gesellschaft keinen entsprechenden Antrag gestellt haben, eine Chance.
WAS SOLLTEN DIE GESCHÄFTSFÜHRER BZW. VORSTANDSMITGLIEDER DER POLNISCHEN GESELLSCHAFTEN PRÜFEN ODER TUN, UM EINE PERSÖNLICHE HAFTUNG ZU VERMEIDEN?
Erstens wird den Managern polnischer Gesellschaften empfohlen, zu prüfen, ob einer der Insolvenztests für ihre Unternehmen erfüllt ist. Während die Erfüllung des Liquiditätstests nur selten übersehen werden kann, kann die Erfüllung des Bilanztests leicht über Monate oder Jahre hinweg unbemerkt bleiben, da sie sich möglicherweise nicht auf das Tagesgeschäft des polnischen Unternehmens auswirkt. Dies gilt insbesondere dann, wenn die für die Fortführung der Geschäftstätigkeit erforderliche Liquidität von der Muttergesellschaft oder durch externe Finanzierung auf Gruppenebene bereitgestellt wird. Daher wird dringend empfohlen, einen Bilanzinsolvenztest auf der Grundlage von 24-Monats-Datendurchzuführen.
Stellt es sich zweitens heraus, dass der Insolvenztest in Bezug auf eine bestimmte Gesellschaft erfüllt ist, sind die möglichen Maßnahmen unter den nach polnischem Recht verfügbaren Instrumenten zu untersuchen. Die Wahl einer entsprechenden Lösung hängt von der Schuldenstruktur und der Liquiditätslage einer bestimmten Gesellschaft ab. Im Allgemeinen können aber die Geschäftsleiter Folgendes in Betracht ziehen (i) Umschuldung; (ii) Umstrukturierung der Gesellschaft durch einen freiwilligen Umtausch von Schulden in Eigenkapital; oder (iii) Einleitung eines der vier verfügbaren gerichtlich überwachten Umstrukturierungsverfahren.
Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass es je nach den Umständen für die Geschäftsführer/Vorstandmitglieder auch ratsam sein kann, parallel zur Umsetzung anderer Umstrukturierungsoptionen einen Insolvenzantrag zu stellen. Insbesondere wenn ein formeller Umstrukturierungsweg eingeschlagen werden soll, wird der Insolvenzantrag in der Regel gestellt, um die Laufzeit der Haftung eines Managers zu stoppen, während der Umstrukturierungsantrag vorbereitet wird. Da die Umstrukturierungsverfahren nach polnischem Recht Vorrang haben, wäre das Insolvenzgericht verpflichtet, über den Umstrukturierungsantrag zuerst oder zusammen mit dem Insolvenzantrag zu entscheiden.
WELCHE RISIKEN SOLLTEN GESCHÄFTSLEUTE IN POLEN KENNEN UND WAS KÖNNEN SIE TUN, UM DIESE ZU MINDERN?
In Anbetracht der obigen Ausführungen ist damit zu rechnen, dass bei den polnischen Insolvenzgerichten vermehrt Insolvenzanträge gestellt und von den polnischen Gesellschaften Umstrukturierungsverfahren eingeleitet werden.
Obwohl es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass dies zu einer massiven Insolvenzwelle führen wird (in den meisten Fällen werden ja wohl Umstrukturierungsanträge gestellt), empfehlen wir auf jeden Fall erhöhte Vorsicht bei der Solvenzüberwachung der polnischen Geschäftspartner, da deren Insolvenz und/oder Umstrukturierung ihre Geschäftsbeziehungen erheblich beeinträchtigen kann.
Erstens kann den Schuldnern in einem Insolvenz- und/oder Umstrukturierungsverfahren das Recht entzogen werden, das Vermögen der Gesellschaft zu verwalten. Die Verwaltung würde in diesem Fall dem gerichtlich bestellten Treuhänder oder Verwalter übertragen. Selbst wenn der Schuldner im Besitz des Vermögens bleibt, werden alle Handlungen, die über den normalen Geschäftsbetrieb hinausgehen, von dem gerichtlich bestellten Verwalter überwacht. Der Verwalter kann auch in der Zeit zwischen dem entsprechenden Antrag und der Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens bestellt werden. Dies kann sich auf die Fähigkeit des Schuldners auswirken, verbindliche Verträge abzuschließen und/oder sie sogar zu kündigen.
Zweitens können sowohl im Insolvenz- als auch im Sanierungsverfahren bestimmte Handlungen des Schuldners vor der Verfahrenseröffnung für ungültig und/oder unwirksam befunden werden. Die zuständige gerichtlich bestellte Behörde, die die Masse verwaltet, hat das Recht, nicht vollständig erfüllte Verträge aus der Zeit vor der Verfahrenseröffnung zu kündigen.
Andererseits sieht das polnische Sanierungsrecht vor, dass die andere Vertragspartei für die Dauer des Umstrukturierungsverfahrens u.a. Mietverträge über Immobilien, in denen das zu sanierende Unternehmen tätig ist, Leasingverträge, Garantieverträge, Verträge über die Gewährung von Lizenzen an den Schuldner und/oder andere Verträge von grundlegender Bedeutung für die Geschäftstätigkeit des Schuldners ohne Zustimmung des Gläubigerrats (ein kollektives Gremium, das die Gläubiger im Umstrukturierungsverfahren vertritt) nicht wirksam kündigen kann. Der gerichtlich bestellte Sachwalter oder Verwalter sollte innerhalb von drei Wochen nach Eröffnung des Restrukturierungsverfahrens eine Liste solcher unkündbaren Verträge erstellen, die in die letztgenannte Kategorie fallen. Andere Parteien solcher Verträge haben keine rechtlichen Möglichkeiten, gegen ihre Aufnahme in eine solche Liste Einspruch zu erheben. Beachten Sie, dass diese sehr weit gefasste Kategorie von Verträgen erst am 1. Dezember 2021 hinzugefügt wurde, so dass es keine etablierte Praxis in diesem Bereich gibt. Daher besteht für alle Verträge, die mit Schuldnern geschlossen werden, die sich in einem polnischen Umstrukturierungsverfahren befinden, die Gefahr, dass sie für die Dauer des Umstrukturierungsverfahrens (das oft zwei bis drei Jahre dauert) unkündbar werden.
Da die oben genannten Beschränkungen für die Beendigung von Verträgen mit zu sanierenden Schuldnern jedoch erst ab Eröffnung des Umstrukturierungsverfahrens gelten, ist es möglich, bestimmte Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um diese Risiken von der Antragstellung bis zur tatsächlichen Eröffnung des Verfahrens (dies nimmt oft mehr als 6 Monate in Anspruch) zu mindern.
Daher empfehlen wir eine kontinuierliche Überwachung der Eintragungen im zentralen Schuldnerregister, in dem alle Anträge auf Insolvenz- und Umstrukturierungsverfahren in Bezug auf Gesellschaften mit Sitz in Polen offengelegt werden und öffentlich zugänglich sind.
Wenn Sie Fragen zu einem der oben genannten Themen haben, wenden Sie sich bitte an unser Umstrukturierung und Insolvenz Team oder German Desk: Klaudia Frątczak-Kospin, Anna Wojciechowska, Anna Fennig und Anna Oleś.
On 1 July 2023, the government declared that the state of pandemic is to end in the territory of Poland for the first time since 2020.
This will result in the expiration of certain regulations which were introduced to protect businesses against the consequences of disruption to economic life triggered by the COVID pandemic.
One of the regulations soon to expire is a suspension of the obligation to file for bankruptcy within 30 days of the date of insolvency provided that the insolvency resulted from the COVID pandemic.
Consequently, the members of the management boards of Polish companies which became insolvent as a result of the COVID pandemic, and have not made the relevant bankruptcy filing, will be obliged to file for bankruptcy by 30 July 2023. Managers who fail to file for bankruptcy on time risk civil, criminal, tax, and administrative liability.
What should the members of the Polish management boards be aware of and do in light of the above? What practical impact could that have to those conducting business in Poland?
INSOLVENCY TESTS UNDER POLISH LAW
Polish Bankruptcy Law provides for two separate insolvency tests, and thus, a debtor shall be considered insolvent if:
They lose the ability to pay its pecuniary liabilities as they fall due (liquidity insolvency test);
The liquidity insolvency test is the main test used to assess the insolvency of a debtor. It is applicable to both natural and legal persons.
It is presumed that a debtor has lost the ability pay its pecuniary liabilities as they fall due when the delay in payment of its pecuniary liabilities exceeds three months.
or
Their pecuniary liabilities exceed the value of their assets for a continued period exceeding twenty-four months (balance sheet insolvency test).
The balance sheet insolvency test is applicable only to corporate entities (including companies and partnerships).
The debtor’s liabilities are presumed to exceed its assets when its balance sheet liabilities (excluding financial reserves and liabilities due to related entities) exceed the value of the debtor’s assets, and such a situation persists for a period exceeding twenty-four months. For the purposes of the balance sheet insolvency test, the debtor’s pecuniary liabilities do not include, among others, future liabilities and liabilities towards its partners or shareholders arising from a loan or other legal act with a similar effect executed within 5 preceding years.
INSOLVENCY RELATED OBLIGATIONS OF MANAGERS OF POLISH COMPANIES AND ASSOSCIATED LIABILITY
The obligation to file for bankruptcy within a strict deadline
A debtor who is an entrepreneur is obliged to file for bankruptcy no later than 30 (thirty) days from the date on which it became insolvent (in the case of corporate entities either of the insolvency tests needs to be met).
In the event of an entity being a Polish corporate entity the obligation to file for bankruptcy within the said deadline lies with each of the members of the management board of the company. This is irrespective of whether they are directly engaged in day-to-day management of the business of a given entity or whether there are any internal divisions of responsibility among the members of the management board of the company.
Unlike in other jurisdictions, Polish law does not leave any room for managers to avoid filing in the event that they reasonably expect that the continuation of the company’s business operations will not be detrimental to the creditors or if it can be reasonably presumed that solvency will be restored in the long term.
Liability for the company’s debts and liability for damages caused to creditors
Any of the members of the management board of a Polish limited liability company or a simple joint stock company may be personally liable for the company’s debts if the enforcement against the company proves ineffective, unless they prove that (i) a bankruptcy filing was made in a timely manner or, alternatively, restructuring proceedings were opened within the applicable deadline (ii) they were not at fault for a late filing or (iii) despite a failure to comply with bankruptcy filing obligations, the creditors of the company suffered no damage.
In addition, a failure to make a timely bankruptcy filing may also trigger liability toward the debtor’s creditors for damages. This kind of liability applies to managers of all corporate entities. It is presumed that the extent of the damage suffered by a creditor amounts to the value of the unsatisfied claim of the creditor.
Liability for tax and social security arears
Moreover, members of a Polish limited liability company, simple joint stock company or a joint stock company may be subject to specific personal liability for the tax and social security arrears of the company that they manage if the enforcement against the company’s assets proves to be ineffective in any part. This is unless they prove that: (i) the bankruptcy filing was made in due time or, alternatively, restructuring proceedings were opened at this time; or (ii) they are not at fault for a late filing.
It should be noted that the administrative courts ruling on the liability of managers in respect of public levies are far stricter in their interpretation of the law; favoring the interest of the public authorities who are creditors.
A manager can be discharged from liability if they indicate to the relevant public authorities the company’s assets which may be used to enable a successful satisfaction of a preponderant part of public levies, which is extremely rarely possible in practice.
Criminal and quasi-criminal liability for a lack of, or late, bankruptcy filing
A failure to make a timely bankruptcy filing by a member of the management board may result in criminal liability for said member of the management board and/or a liquidator of a company both under the Commercial Company code and Penal code. In certain circumstances, they could also be liable under the fiscal penal code. Penalties that may be imposed include fines, limitations of liberty, or even imprisonment. However, so far criminal sanctions have not been widely imposed on managers who have violated their bankruptcy-related obligations.
Note that the Polish penal code, additionally, provides for several offences which may be committed in connection with insolvency. These include things such as fraudulent asset transfers or selective repayment of debts, which should not be neglected by the managers meandering in the times of the company’s distress preceding bankruptcy filing.
Moreover, a late filing may trigger quasi-criminal liability. This can consist of a court-imposed prohibition to conduct business activity or to be a member of the management board and/or supervisory board of legal entities for a period of 1 to 10 years.
Shadow directors
Polish law does not recognize the concept of a shadow director. The exception to this is a person who manages the debtor’s estate, and who has significantly contributed to a failure to file a bankruptcy petition within the statutory time limit, may be subject to quasi-criminal liability (prohibition to conduct business activity)
COVID BANKRUPTCY FILING SUSPENSION
The outbreak of the COVID-19 in 2020 prompted the introduction of specific measures into Polish law to protect business against the severe consequences associated with the pandemic, including a limited bankruptcy filing obligation suspension.
The 30-day bankruptcy filing deadline for debtors whose insolvency arose: (i) during the government announced state of the epidemy or epidemic threat; and (ii) resulted from COVID-19, was suspended until renouncement of the state of epidemy and epidemic threat in the territory of Poland (when the 30-day filing deadline would restart anew).
The government announced state of epidemic threat has now been announced to end on 30 June 2023. This means that any members of management boards of Polish companies which became insolvent in the period until the end of June 2023 (apart from those covered by the abovementioned exemption)will have until 30 July 2023 to make their bankruptcy filing and avoid personal liability.
It is hard to determine how many managers have consciously chosen to withhold making the relevant bankruptcy filing. This is due to the general premisses provided which have allowed the postponement of filing. There have been doubts raised as to their application in more complex cases where the COVID pandemic may have not been the only reason for insolvency.
However, given that insolvency occurred during the government announced state of epidemy or epidemic threat, it is assumed that any insolvency resulted from the COVID pandemic. This creates a window of opportunity to all members of a management board of a Polish company who (consciously or not) did not make the relevant filing within 30 days as of the date of the company’s insolvency.
WHAT SHOULD A MEMBER OF A POLISH COMPANY CHECK OR DO TO AVOID PERSONAL LIABILITY?
Firstly, it is recommended that any manager of a Polish Company check if any of the insolvency tests have been fulfilled with respect to the entities that they manage. It is unlikely that a result stemming from the liquidity test goes unnoticed, the fulfilment of the balance sheet test may be easily unnoticed for months or years as it may not be influencing the day-to-day operations of the Polish part of the business. Especially, if the liquidity necessary to continue trading is being provided by the parent entity or there is external financing at the group level. Thus, a thorough examination of the fulfilment of the balance sheet insolvency test based on 24-month data is highly recommended.
Secondly, if it transpires that the insolvency test is satisfied in relation to a given entity, the next step is to investigate a course of action from among the tools available under Polish law. The choice of relevant solution would depend on the debt structure and the liquidity standing of a given entity. However, in general terms, a manager could consider: (i) debt restructuring; (ii) corporate restructuring consisting in voluntary debt to equity swap; or (iii) entering into one of 4 available court supervised restructuring processes.
It should be noted that depending on the circumstances, it may also be advisable for a manager to make a bankruptcy filing in parallel to the implementation of other restructuring options. In particular, if a formal restructuring route is to be pursued, the normal next step would be to make a bankruptcy filing in order to stop the clock in respect of a manager’s liability while the restructuring motion is being prepared. Since restructuring processes are prioritized under Polish law, the bankruptcy court would be obliged to rule on the restructuring motion first or together with the bankruptcy motion.
WHEN CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN POLAND WHAT RISKS SHOULD A PERSON BE AWARE OF AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MITIGATE AGAINST THEM?
In light of the above, we can expect an increased number of bankruptcy motions being filed with the Polish bankruptcy courts as well as restructuring processes being opened by Polish companies.
Although this is unlikely to cause a massive wave of bankruptcies (as in most cases we may expect the restructuring filings to be made)y, we recommend increased caution in monitoring the solvency status of Polish business partners as their bankruptcy and/or restructuring may significantly influence their commercial relationships.
Firstly, the debtors in a bankruptcy and/or restructuring process may be deprived of the right to manage the company’s estate. The management of the estate would, in that case, be vested upon the court-appointed trustee or administrator. Even if the debtor remains in possession of the estate, all actions going beyond the ordinary course of business would be supervised by a court-appointed supervisor. A supervisor may also be appointed in the interim period between the relevant filing and the opening of the relevant insolvency-related proceedings. This may influence the debtor’s ability to enter binding contracts and/or even terminate them.
Secondly, both within the bankruptcy and the remedial restructuring process, certain acts of the debtor preceding their opening may be found invalid and/or ineffective and the relevant court-appointed authority managing the estate has a right to terminate not fully performed contracts predating the opening of the relevant proceedings.
On the other hand, Polish restructuring law provides that, for the duration of the restructuring process, the other party to the contract cannot, without the consent of the creditors’ council (a collective body representing the creditors in the restructuring proceedings), effectively terminate, among others, lease agreements for the real estate where the restructured entity conducts its business, leasing agreements, guarantee agreements, agreements granting licenses to the restructured debtor, and/or other contracts of fundamental importance to the restructured debtor’s business.
The court-appointed supervisor or administrator should draw up a list of non-terminable agreements falling into the last category within 3 weeks of the restructuring process commencing, and the other parties to such agreements have no legal means to object to their inclusion in such a list.
This broad category of contracts was added on 1 December 2021, so there is no established practice with respect of them. Therefore, all contracts concluded with debtors undergoing the Polish restructuring process are at risk of becoming interminable for a period of duration of the restructuring proceedings (which often last 2-3 years).
However, given that the abovementioned restrictions on termination of contracts with a restructured debtor as to the fact they apply only as of the date on which the restructuring process is opened, it is possible to take certain actions to mitigate these risks in a period as of the date on which the relevant motion is filed until the actual opening of the proceedings (which often exceeds 6 months).
Therefore, we recommend continuously monitoring submissions made to the central register of debtors. This is where all motions for bankruptcy and restructuring processes with respect to entities with the center of main interest located in Poland are revealed and publicly accessible.
We present the most important changes in the labor law that came into force on 1 January 2023. We also remind you of the annual obligations of the employer and indicate what aspects the PIP will pay attention to during the inspections scheduled for 2023.
MINIMUM REMUNERATION CHANGE
In 2023, an exceptional double change in the minimum remuneration will occur. It is related
to the annual average consumer price index projected for 2023.
according to the general rules, if this index is at least 105%, two dates are set for changing
the amount of the minimum remuneration and the amount of the minimum hourly rate.
In the assumptions of the draft state budget for 2023, adopted by the Council of Ministers,
the amount of the average annual index of growth in consumer prices was projected at 107.8%.
Accordingly:
as of 1st January 2023, the minimum remuneration for work is PLN 3,490 (hourly rate: PLN 22.80);
as of 1st July 2023, the minimum remuneration for work will be PLN 3,600 (hourly rate: PLN 23.50).
As a reminder, the minimum hourly rate also applies to those providing services based on civil law contracts (e.g., contracts of mandate, contracts for the provision of services (B2B)).
The change in the minimum remuneration is also related to changes in the number of certain employee benefits, including compensation for harassment or discrimination (compensation in an amount not lower than the minimum remuneration), the maximum amount of severance pay for so-called “collective redundancies” (the amount of cash severance pay cannot exceed the amount of 15 times the minimum remuneration), or an allowance for night work (20% of the hourly rate resulting from the minimum remuneration).
AUTO SUBSCRIPTION TO EMPLOYEE CAPITAL PLANS (“ECP”)
According to the Act on the ECP, every 4 years, by the last day of February in a given year, the employing entity shall inform the employed person who has made a declaration of resignation from payment into the ECP to start making contributions to the ECP again for that individual. It will be the first automatic subscription to the ECP since the Act on the ECP came into effect. The next such automatic subscription will take place in 2027.
Employers should provide information on auto subscriptions to employed individuals who have resigned from paying contributions to the ECP by 28th February 2023. If such individuals
do not re-submit their declaration of resignation, they will be automatically registered
in the ECP as of 1st April 2023, and the employer will be obliged to remit to the financial institution the accrued and collected contribution to the ECP on the remuneration paid to such individual starting from March 2023.
The obligation to provide the above information applies to all employing entities that have implemented ECP. Such information may be provided in the manner adopted by the employer, e.g. by e-mail.
INFORMATION REGARDING THE COMPANY SOCIAL BENEFITS FUND (“CSBF”)
We would like to remind you that by 31st January 2023, employers with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees as of 1st January 2023 should inform employees of the lack of creation of the CSBF and the lack of payment of holiday allowance in a given calendar year (if such
a decision has been made).
Such information should be included in the collective bargaining agreement or remuneration rules. If the employer does not have the above documents in force, the information should be communicated to employees in the manner adopted by the employer.
Failure to provide the above information may result in an obligation to pay holiday allowance to employees (in the case of employees taking 14 calendar days of uninterrupted holiday leave).
PIP ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES FOR 2023
In the 2023 program, the PIP has identified three main strategies in the following areas:
inspections and preventive actions for the construction sector – increased supervision is to include, in particular, the elimination of accident risks;
control of risks of chemical agents in the work environment – in particular, at workplaces where chemicals are produced or used for which levels of maximum permissible concentrations in the work environment have been established (NDS);
intensified supervision of workplaces – in particular, in plants where particularly high occupational risks are expressed by high exceedances of the norms of factors harmful to health and high accident rates.
In addition, the PIP during inspections will verify issues related to, i.a.:
remote work;
mobbing/bullying;
accuracy of employment under civil law contracts;
working time and the payment of remuneration and other benefits from the employment relationship;
combating illegal employment and controlling the payment of remuneration.
In 2023 PIP plans to conduct 60,000 inspections, mainly at employers who entrust work
to foreigners, especially citizens of Ukraine. The PIP plans to carry out 8,000 inspections
of compliance with the ban on civil law contracts under conditions indicating the existence
of an employment relationship.
REMOTE WORK IN THE LABOR CODE
The work in the Sejm (lower house of Parliament) on the introduction of remote work into
the Labor Code is coming to an end. At the last session of the Sejm (11, 12, 13 January 2023), all of the amendments of the Senate (higher house of Parliament) were rejected.
Therefore, the amendments regarding the employer’s obligation regarding accepting the request for remote work filed by an employee raising a child to the age of 10, extending the period of occasional remote work to 30 days and extending the vacatio legis to 3 months were rejected. Additionally, the Sejm did not agree to one of the Senate’s amendments, which was approved by the Commission on amendments to the codifications concerning the introduction of an obligation for the employer to take into account a request for remote work made by an employee with a disability certificate or a certificate with a significant degree of disability.
The final text of the law adopted by the Sejm will be presented to the Polish President for signature.
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TRAVEL ALLOWANCES
Another amendment to the labor law relates to the number of travel allowances and lump sums for business trips. According to the Ordinance of the Minister of Family and Social Policy of 14 November 2022:
for the time of a domestic business trip falling as of 1 January 2023, the travel allowance and lump-sum accommodation allowance will be respectively set at PLN 45 and PLN 67.50;
for the time of a business trip abroad, started and not completed before 29 November 2022, business travel payments will be determined based on new, higher rates.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORK-LIFE BALANCE DIRECTIVE AND THE DIRECTIVE ON TRANSPARENT WORKING CONDITIONS
Another change to the Labor Code in 2023 will be the introduction of solutions resulting from the implementation of EU directives on transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU and on work-life balance for parents and guardians (so-called “work-life balance”). The Council of Ministers approved the draft amendment, which was submitted to the Sejm on 11 January and has been sent for the first reading. The Sejm will work on the draft at its next session, which will be held on 25 and 26 January 2023.
As a reminder, the draft amendments include the introduction of new types of leave (e.g., 5-day care leave), a ban on obliging an employee to inform about undertaking an additional activity that is not competitive with the employer’s activity, restrictions on the conclusion of probationary contracts and the introduction of an obligation to justify the termination of fixed-term contracts (until now, this obligation applied only to employment contracts concluded for an indefinite period).
In case of any questions, feel free to contact Wioleta Polak, head of the labor law team.
20 жовтня 2021 року Урядовим Центром Легалізації зареєстровано законопроєкт про внесення змін до Закону «Про допомогу громадянам України у зв’язку зі збройним конфліктом на території цієї країни» та деяких інших нормативних актів («Проект»). Проект передбачає низку змін, що стосуються становища іноземців, у тому числі їх перебування на території Польщі.
Цей алерт інформує про найважливіші зміни, що регламентовані Проектом, які стосуються легалізації перебування іноземців та змін до правил працевлаштування громадян Росії.
СКАСУВАННЯ ПРОДОВЖЕННЯ ДІЇ ОКРЕМИХ ВИДІВ ДОКУМЕНТІВ ЩОДО ПРАВ НА ПРОЖИВАННЯ У ЗВ’ЯЗКУ З COVID-19
Проект передбачає скасування чинного механізму продовження дії документів, які надають дозвіл на проживання іноземців, термін дії яких закінчився під час стану епідемічної загрози або стану епідемії, та продовження яких було запроваджено Законом «Про спеціальні заходи, спрямовані на запобігання та протидію поширенню COVID-19, інших інфекційних захворювань та спричинених ними надзвичайних ситуацій» («Закон про спеціальні заходи щодо COVID-19»). Перш за все, це стосується національних віз і шенгенських віз (включаючи візи, видані іншими країнами Шенгенської угоди), посвідок на проживання та тимчасових посвідчень особи іноземця.
Звертаємо увагу на те, що з набранням чинності вищезгаданих змін припиняються також існуючі права щодо продовження терміну дії документів, які включають не лише право легального перебування в Польщі, але в деяких випадках також, наприклад, доступ до ринку праці (звільнення від обов’язку отримання дозволу на працю) або право вести підприємницьку діяльністьв Польщі в певній формі (наприклад, у формі фізичної особи-підприємця).
Стосовно громадян України та їх подружжя продовження строку дії посвідки на проживання передбачено також іншим нормативно-правовим актом – Законом «Про допомогу громадянам України у зв’язку зі збройним конфліктом на території цієї країни» («Спеціальний закон»). Проект передбачає зміну засад продовження перебування громадян України та їх подружжя підставі Спеціального закону, про що йдеться нижче.
ВИЗНАЧЕННЯ СТРОКУ ПРОДОВЖЕННЯ ДОКУМЕНТІВ НА ПРОЖИВАННЯ ЗГІДНО ЗІ СПЕЦІАЛЬНИМ ЗАКОНОМ
Виключно стосовно громадян України та їх подружжя Спеціальний закон детально регулює продовження строку дії посвідок на проживання, термін дії яких закінчився після 24 лютого 2022 року.
Законопроект передбачає продовження терміну дії національних або шенгенських віз (у тому числі виданих іншими державами Шенгенської зони) і дозволів на тимчасове перебування (включаючи видані на їх основі посвідки на проживання) до 24 серпня 2023 року.
ДОЗВОЛІВ НА ТИМЧАСОВЕ ПРОЖИВАННЯ ДЛЯ ГРОМАДЯН УКРАЇНИ СПЕЦІАЛЬНИМ ЗАКОНОМ НЕ ПЕРЕДБАЧЕНО
Спеціальний закон у чинній редакції надає право громадянам України та їхнім подружжям, які прибули до Польщі починаючи з 24 лютого 2022 року, подати заяву на отримання окремого виду дозволу на тимчасове проживання строком на 3 роки. Право подати заяву на отримання дозволу на тимчасове проживання відповідно до Спеціального закону набувається не раніше ніж через 9 місяців з дати в’їзду та не пізніше 24 серпня 2023 року.
Проект передбачає відкликання можливості подання заяви на отримання вищезазначеного дозволу на проживання в спеціальному режимі на підставі Спеціального закону. Обґрунтуванням запропонованих змін є надання електронному документу (доступному за допомогою diia.pl) характеру дозволу на перебування в розумінні ст. 2 п. 16 літ. b розпорядження Європейського Парламенту та Ради (ЄС) 2016/399 від 9 березня 2016 року щодо уніфікованого кодексу правил, що регулюють пересування осіб через кордони (прикордонний кодекс Шенгену). Зважаючи на вищезазначене, не буде необхідності подавати заяву на отримання посвідки на тимчасове проживання за спеціальною процедурою відповідно до Спеціального закону.
ПРОПОНОВАНА ДАТА НАБРАННЯ ЧИННОСТІ ЛЕГАЛІЗАЦІЙНИХ ЗМІН
Законопроект передбачає набуття чинності положеннями про продовження терміну дії документів, що надають дозвіл на проживання на підставі Закону про спеціальні заходи щодо COVID-19 зі спливом 30 днів з дня опублікування акта у Віснику Законів.
Стосовно продовження терміну дії документів, які надають дозвіл на проживання та відкликання можливості подання заяви про тимчасове перебування на підставі Спеціального закону, проектом передбачено набрання чинності змінами з дня опублікування закону у Віснику законів.
ЗМІНИ В ПРАВИЛАХ ПРАЦЕВЛАШТУВАННЯ ГРОМАДЯН РОСІЙСЬКОЇ ФЕДЕРАЦІЇ
На підставі Розпорядження Міністра у справах сім’ї та соціальної політики від 25 жовтня 2022 року, про внесення змін до Розпорядження стосовно країн, до громадян яких підлягають застосуванню деякі положення про дозвіл на сезонну роботу та положення щодо декларації про доручення роботи іноземцю («Розпорядження»), з каталогу громадян країн, яким дозволено працювати в Польщі в спрощеному порядку, на підставі декларації про доручення роботи, вилучено громадян Російської Федерації.
Вказані зміни набули чинності 28 жовтня 2022 року. Їх запровадження по суті означає необхідність отримати дозвіл на працю перед тим, як довірити роботу громадянину Росії в Польщі.
Також інформуємо, що декларації про доручення роботи іноземцю, внесені до реєстру декларацій до 28 жовтня 2022 року, залишаються в силі. Доручення роботи громадянину Росії на підставі декларації про доручення роботи буде можливе виключно протягом строку і на умовах, зазначених у декларації. Подальша зміна умов працевлаштування вимагатиме отримання дозволу на працю.
Внаслідок запроваджених змін наразі право працювати в Польщі на підставі декларації про доручення мають лише громадяни п’яти країн, що не входять до ЄС, а саме громадяни Вірменії, Білорусі, Грузії, Молдови та України (громадяни України додатково мають окремий режим працевлаштування, передбачений Спеціальним законом).
У разі виникнення питань, пов’язаних з освітленою проблематикою, будь ласка, зв’яжіться з Анною Матієвською з команди M&A.
In ein paar Tagen – am 13. Oktober 2022 – wird eine wichtige Novelle des polnischen Gesetzesbuches über die Handelsgesellschaften in Kraft treten.
Ihren grundlegenden und weit diskutierten Teil bildet das Holdingrecht, also eine Reihe von Vorschriften, welche die Problematik von Unternehmensgruppen regeln. Dem Holdingrecht war unser früherer sich speziell an Unternehmen richtender Lex Alert gewidmet, mit dem Sie sich im Detail HIER vertraut machen können.
Der andere Teil der Novelle ist dagegen weitgehend bereinigender und klarstellender Natur. Anwendung findet er auf alle nach dem polnischen Recht zulässige Formen der Kapitalgesellschaften: Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung, Aktiengesellschaften sowie Einfache Aktiengesellschaften. Die Änderungen beziehen sich vor allem auf die Kompetenzen der Aufsichtsräte, die einzelnen Aufgaben der Vorstände sowie die Arbeitsorganisation in den Aufsichtsräten.
Der vorliegende Lex Alert befasst sich mit dem erwähnten zweiten Teil der Novelle. Im Folgenden werden einige ausgewählte Änderungen erläutert, wobei der Schwerpunkt dieses Lex Alerts auf den Fragen liegt, auf die im Zusammenhang mit der Anpassung interner Gesellschaftsunterlagen besonders zu achten ist.
WEITERE BEFUGNISSE DES AUFSICHTSRATS SOWIE NEUE TÄTIGKEITSFELDER DES VORSTANDS
Bei der Anpassung von Gesellschaftsverträgen und Satzungen ist unter anderem Folgendes zu beachten:
Möglichkeit der Ernennung eines Beraters des Aufsichtsrates
Die neuen Vorschriften sehen die Möglichkeit vor, dass der Aufsichtsrat einen Beschluss über die Prüfung einer bestimmten die Gesellschaft unmittelbar betreffenden Angelegenheit von einem durch dieses Gesellschaftsorgan frei ausgewählten Berater fasst. In solch einem Falle wird der Aufsichtsrat auch dann dazu berechtigt sein, im Namen und auf Rechnung der Gesellschaft mit dem Berater einen entsprechenden Vertrag abzuschließen. Um von dieser Möglichkeit auch im den Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung Gebrauch machen zu können, sollten vorab entsprechende Bestimmungen in den Gesellschaftsvertrag aufgenommen werden. Bei Aktiengesellschaften und Einfachen Aktiengesellschaften hingegen besteht diese Möglichkeit bereits von Rechts wegen. Die Satzung oder der Gesellschaftsvertrag können die oben angesprochene Befugnis des Aufsichtsrats ausschließen, beziehungsweise – einschränken, indem beispielsweise die Hauptversammlung ermächtigt wird, den Höchstbetrag aller im jeweiligen Geschäftsjahr zu tragenden Gesamtkosten für die Berater des Aufsichtsrats festzusetzen.
Informationspflichten der Vorstände der Aktiengesellschaften
Sobald die neuen Vorschriften in Kraft getreten sind, sind die Vorstände von Aktiengesellschaften verpflichtet, den Aufsichtsräten, ohne weitere Aufforderung, eine Reihe von Informationen über die Gesellschaft, darunter etwa die Informationen über die Lage des Gesellschaft, über die Fortschritte bei der Umsetzung der festgelegten Entwicklungsrichtlinien sowie über die etwaig eingetretenen Änderungen in Bezug auf die früher übermittelten Informationen, zukommen zu lassen. Die vorgenannte Informationspflicht erstreckt sich ebenfalls auf die Informationen über Tochtergesellschaften und verbundene Unternehmen, von denen der Vorstand Kenntnis erlangt hat. Den einschlägigen neuen Rechtsvorschriften sind auch die Fristen und die Form für die Übermittlung dieser Informationen zu entnehmen. Besonderer Hervorhebung bedarf in dem Punkt die Tatsache, dass die vorgenannte, dem Vorstand auferlegte Informationspflicht kraft Satzung einer Aktiengesellschaft ausgeschlossen oder eingeschränkt werden kann.
Zustimmung zu Transaktionen von Aktiengesellschaften mit verbundenen Unternehmen
In das polnische Gesetzbuch über die Handelsgesellschaften werden Bestimmungen inkorporiert, die vorsehen, dass die Aktiengesellschaft zur Vornahme von bestimmten Geschäften mit der Muttergesellschaft, einer Tochtergesellschaft oder auch mit einem verbundenen Unternehmen die Zustimmung des Aufsichtsrats einholen muss. Diese Verpflichtung wird bei einem Geschäft konkretisiert, dessen Wert zusammen mit dem Wert aller im Laufe des Geschäftsjahres mit demselben Unternehmen abgeschlossenen Geschäfte 10 % des Gesamtvermögens des Unternehmens übersteigt; dieser Wert ist auf der Grundlage des letzten festgestellten Jahresabschlusses zu ermitteln. Diese Verpflichtung kann jedoch in der Satzung der Aktiengesellschaft ausgeschlossen werden. Zur Anwendung wird diese Verpflichtung allerdings nicht in Bezug auf die Unternehmen kommen, die an einem geregelten Markt notiert sind, sowie die Unternehmen, die einer Unternehmensgruppe im Sinne des Holdingrechts angehören.
ARBEITSORGANISATION IM AUFSICHTSRAT
Die Novelle sieht zudem die Einführung von Bestimmungen in das Gesetzbuch über die Handelsgesellschaften vor, die – unter anderem – die Funktion des Aufsichtsratsvorsitzenden, die Einberufung von Aufsichtsratssitzungen, die Protokollierung von Vorstands- und Aufsichtsratssitzungen und den Mindestinhalt von Jahresberichten der Aufsichtsräte von Aktiengesellschaften zum Gegenstand haben.
AMTSZEIT
Den neuen Vorschriften zufolge wird die Amtszeit der Mitglieder des Vorstands und des Aufsichtsrats in vollen Geschäftsjahren berechnet, sofern der Gesellschaftsvertrag oder die Satzung nichts anderes besagen.
An einem konkreten Beispiel lässt sich dies folgendermaßen erklären: Angenommen, dass die Satzung oder der Gesellschaftsvertrag des Unternehmens nichts anderes bestimmt und sich das Geschäftsjahr mit dem Kalenderjahr überlappt, wird sich das Mandat des Vorstandsmitglieds, beziehungsweise – des Aufsichtsratsmitglieds, das am 1. Juni 2022 für eine Amtszeit von drei Jahren auf diesen Posten berufen wurde, über den folgenden Zeitraum erstrecken:
vom 1. Juni 2022 bis zum 31. Dezember 2022,
vom 1. Januar 2023 bis zum 31. Dezember 2023 – das erste volle Amtsjahr,
vom 1. Januar 2024 bis zum 31. Dezember 2024 – das zweite volle Amtsjahr,
vom 1. Januar 2025 bis zum 31. Dezember 2025 – das dritte volle Amtsjahr,
vom 1. Januar 2026 bis zum Tag, an dem die Gesellschafterversammlung oder die Hauptversammlung den Jahresabschluss für das Jahr 2025 feststellt.
Gemäß einer einschlägigen Übergangsbestimmung werden die zum Zeitpunkt des Inkrafttretens der neuen Regelung (d.h. am 13. Oktober 2022) noch laufenden Mandate und Amtszeiten der einzelnen Organmitglieder nach der oben dargelegten neuen Regelung berechnet.
DIE NOTWENDIGKEIT, BESTEHENDE GESELLSCHAFTSUNTERLAGEN ZU ÜBERARBEITEN
In Anbetracht der bevorstehenden Änderungen werden die Kapitalgesellschaften dazu angehalten, ihre Gesellschaftsunterlagen zu überprüfen und sie, gegebenenfalls, an die geänderten Vorschriften anzupassen. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit sollten die Gesellschaften vor allen Dingen auf ihre Gesellschaftsverträge, beziehungsweise Satzungen, sowie auf die internen Organisationsvorschriften der Aufsichtsräte und Vorstände lenken.
Rechtsgrundlage:
Gesetz vom 9. Februar 2022 zur Änderung des Gesetzes – Gesetzbuch über die Handelsgesellschaften sowie einiger anderer Gesetze.
Falls Sie Fragen zu der vorstehenden Problematik haben sollten, möchten wir Sie bitten, sich mit den Mitgliedern unseres Teams für Gesellschaftsrecht und Corporate Governance in Kontakt zu setzen: Anna Wojciechowska, Anna Fennig, Karina Chrostowska-Kozioł und Igor Socha.
BELGIAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PNR DIRECTIVE IS NON-COMPLIANT WITH EU LAW – CONCLUSIONS FOR THE AVIATION SECTOR AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE POLISH LEGAL ORDER
PNR DIRECTIVE
The Directive of 27 April 2016 on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of terrorist offenses and serious crime was implemented in the Polish legal system on 9 May 2018 when the Act on the Processing of Passenger Name Record Data was adopted. Activities performed by the Border Guard under the act were heavily criticized by the aviation industry, which led to the entry into force on 7 February 2022 of the amendment to the Act.
On 21 June, the Court of Justice ruled that the Directive is compatible with EU law, but the Belgian implementation is not.
This is all the more important that the scope of certain aspects of the Polish implementation is much broader than of the Belgian one, and provides legal grounds for the aviation industry to obtain favorable court judgments (obviously only for appeals filed against decisions and for further complaints lodged to an administrative court).
THE RULING OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE CHANGES THE CURRENT LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE PNR REGULATION. HERE ARE THE KEY CONCLUSIONS:
The Court confirmed the compatibility and validity of the PNR Directive with EU law.
However, the transfer, processing, and storage of PNR data must be limited to activities that are strictly necessary to fight terrorism and serious crime.
In this regard, the Directive should be interpreted restrictively.
Where there is a real terrorist threat, a Member State may apply the Directive to all flights within the EU; where there is no such threat, the Directive may be applied restrictively to selected routes or travel patterns.
Belgium implemented the PNR Directive by the Act of 25 December 2016 in a way that infringes the right to respect for private life and protection of personal data guaranteed under Belgian and EU laws.
The regulation requiring the transfer and processing of PNR data on all flights within the EU is non-compliant.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR OPERATORS FLYING TO POLAND SINCE 2018
The Polish implementation of the Directive does not distinguish between types of flights. There are no subdivisions of routes or analyses of terrorist risks, either. The obligation to transmit data applies to each route and flight, which may now be successfully challenged in administrative and judicial proceedings.
The ruling will have no legal effect on entities that have not challenged the decisions and rulings of the authorities in Poland in the examined cases. June 2022 LEGAL ALERT
For operators who decided to appeal against decisions imposing administrative penalties for infringements of the Act in Poland, issued by the Commander-in-Chief of the Border Guard, the CJEU ruling augurs well for court proceedings.
It will be possible to challenge proceedings scheduled to be resumed from the beginning of February 2024 precisely on the grounds of non-compliance with the regulation of the EU legal order. However, it will be necessary to raise these circumstances in the proceedings.
If you have any questions related to any of the topics above, please contact an expert in aviation law, transport & logistics Jadwiga Stryczyńska.
DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE OFFICE FOR COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION REGARDING VINTED’S PRACTICES – GUIDELINES FOR E-COMMERCE MARKET PLAYERS
On 9 May, the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (“OCCP”), after a one-year proceeding against Vinted UAB (“Vinted“), issued a decision finding that the company had applied unfair commercial practices consisting of misleading omissions (omitting material information). For these violations, OCCP imposed on Vinted a fine exceeding PLN 5 million.
The decision is unprecedented due to the following aspects:
the clear position expressed for the first time by the OCCP on several important areas of the functioning of services dedicated to consumers (in particular, how to communicate with consumers in the digital environment),
very high penalty imposed on an entity operating in the e-commerce sector,
speed of the proceedings (it took one year from the commencement
of the investigation to the issuance of the decision).
Vinted is a C2C platform that enables the sale of pre-owned clothes and accessories. The OCCP found that the practices infringing collective consumer interests applied by Vinted consisted of:
failure to inform sellers on the Vinted platform in a clear, unambiguous, and timely manner about the possibility of additional identity verification in the know your customer (KYC) procedure carried out by the platform’s counterparty – the e-wallet service provider (Adyen). Funds from transactions made via the Vinted platform were transferred to the e-wallet. The funds were blocked on the e-wallet until the KYC procedure was resolved,
failing to inform consumers buying on the Vinted platform in a clear, unambiguous, and timely manner about the possibility of purchasing an item listed on the Vinted.pl website without paying a Buyer Protection fee. The OCCP concluded that the platform provided two sales models:
directly through Vinted.pl with a mandatory fee or
outside Vinted.pl (through direct arrangements between buyer and seller).
Below we present a selection of the most important conclusions from the decision of the OCCP stemming from the Vinted case, which may prove useful for companies concluding online contracts with consumers.
THE PURCHASE FLOW IS OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE …
The second of the practices determined by the OCCP refers to the lack of coherence between the solutions presented on the website and the provisions of Vinted’s T&C. Analysis of the decision indicates that the OCCP analyzed the design of the architecture of the Vinted.pl website in a detail. The examination concerned such details as specific graphic solutions, used hyperlinks and buttons that the consumer sees on the site. On that basis, the OCCP found that the entire website was designed in such a way that the consumers were under the impression that it was possible to purchase items only directly on Vinted.pl (with an obligatory additional fee), and not through direct contact with the seller (as provided in the T&C).
Although there may be doubts as to whether direct arrangements between the seller and the buyer (outside the website) might be considered a method of concluding an agreement on the platform, the justification of the decision provides a clear sign that the user interface will increasingly come under the scrutiny of the authority. The clarity and timeliness of information provided to consumers directly in the purchase flow will be assessed, as well as its consistency with the rules laid down in the T&C. Particular attention should also be paid while designing default options and settings. Thus, it may be a good idea to involve the legal department in the process of designing the user interface. These conclusions are in line with the transparency by design approach advocated in consumer law, i.e. transparent design of the environment dedicated to consumers[1].
… AS OPPOSED TO MATERIALS PUBLISHED IN ADDITIONAL TABS
The OCCP questioned publishing information material for consumers. Which related to the terms of services rendered, solely in additional tabs (help center) and documents (privacy policy). In the opinion of the authority, the information provided there should be treated as “additional and supplementary”.
At the same time, it seems that the OCCP allowed for the possibility to fulfill information obligations towards consumers by placing required information in such additional materials, provided that the consumer is redirected to them directly in the purchase process (he or she does not have to search for the materials on the platform on their own). Thus, details of the website’s design – such as the inclusion of an appropriate hyperlink – will be important in this regard (cf. section 1).
Given the above, providers of services dedicated to consumers should make sure that relevant information concerning the services provided (including consumers’ rights and obligations) is communicated in the purchase flow and the terms and conditions, and not only in additional sections of the website (e.g. FAQs, help centers, etc.).
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACTS WITH THIRD PARTIES
Often service providers entrust third parties to provide complementary or additional services to the main services offered on the site (e.g. payment services, delivery). If the use of the service requires an agreement with a third party to provide such additional service, the consumer should expressly agree to this. In other words, it is not permissible to conclude agreements with third parties automatically or implicitly by the mere fact of using the main service. It follows from the decision that, in such a case, the consumer should accept the terms and conditions of the ancillary service (regulations), presented to him/her in Polish.
THE TIME AND MANNER IN WHICH ADDITIONAL CHARGES ARE PRESENTED ON THE WEBSITES
It is common for platforms and services to charge buyers with additional, obligatory fees (service, buyer protection, etc.) in connection with intermediation in the transaction. The justification of the decision, as a side remark to the second practice, indicates the position of the OCCP on the disclosure of additional fees and prices in the service.
The OCCP, referring to Article 12(1)(5) of the Consumer Rights Act (“CRA“), indicates that if Vinted allowed for purchasing only on its marketplace, the additional obligatory fee (for Buyer Protection) should be presented together with the product/service price. Therefore in this case, in the opinion of the OCCP, total prices (including the additional fee) should be displayed on the platform. The OCCP explains that this way of presenting fees should apply “both at the stage of searching and presentation (of products – own note) in the catalog, as well as displaying the details of a given offer”[2].
In our opinion, the conclusions presented in the justification of the decision, including the cited legal basis for the considerations, raise far-reaching doubts. According
to the Art. 12 (1) of the CRA cited by the OCCP, pre-contractual information (including the total price) should be provided to the consumer “at the latest at the moment the consumer expresses his will to be bound by the distance contract”. The provision of the Directive implemented by the CRA indicates that such information should be given “before the consumer is bound by the distance contract (…) or any corresponding offer”. Moreover, Article 17(1) of the CRA, as a specific provision applicable to online contracts, explicitly indicates that information about the total price should be provided “directly before the order is placed”. Therefore, it may be argued that there is no obligation to disclose the total price (including additional fees) on the search results page or listing of offers.
Notwithstanding the above, it is of course possible to mislead consumers by gradually surprising them with additional charges in the order placement process (so-called “drip pricing” referred to in the European Commission’s Guidelines on Unfair Commercial Practices[3]). However, then the allegation would be effective upon proving the premises outlined in the Act on Combating Unfair Commercial Practices, and not the CRA.
Importantly, in the course of the investigation, Vinted changed the way prices were presented on the website so that the list of offers displayed a tooltip (an icon with a message) explaining to users that additional fees will be added to the product price. The OCCP found this change to be insufficient, without further explanation.
In light of the OCCP’s strict approach, platform providers should take particular attention when displaying additional fees. Moreover, it is unclear what position the OCCP would take if the company charges fees in the amount that could not be specified already in the first step. It is the case when a fee depends on, for example, the total amount of the order or selection of a particular product feature (which is determined at a later stage, e.g. checkout). It may be expected that these questions may be answered (at least to some extent) in connection with the ongoing OCCP’s investigation of additional fees applied by UberEats[4].
SIGNIFICANT PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The speed of the proceedings conducted by the OCCP is also noteworthy. It took just one year from the commencement of the investigation to the issuance of the decision, while investigating two separate practices and assessing commitments submitted by the undertaking. This speed of investigation shows the authority’s strong determination to enforce consumer law in the digital environment, including eliminating irregularities identified on platforms.
The commitments offered by Vinted were not accepted by the OCCP (unfortunately, in the part concerning this issue the decision is mostly redacted due to business secrets). As regards the first practice, in justifying the non-acceptance of the commitments,UOKiK stressed that the key factor was Vinted’s failure to take action to remove the effects of the practice (mere termination of the practice was not sufficient).
It should be appreciated that during the proceedings the OCCP communicated and justified the refusal to accept the commitments to Vinted. It had happened in the past that the OCCP communicated this only in the decision ending the proceedings, which made it impossible for the undertaking to submit any further, modified commitments.
It is also important for companies operating websites available in many markets that the OCCP considered the turnover generated by the Polish version of the website and its relation to the global turnover of Vinted UAB with its registered office in Vilnius (operating in many European countries). Such adjustment of the amount of the penalty should be assessed positively, as it allows to impose of a penalty adequate to the scale and effects of the alleged practice.
[2] Article 6 (1) of EP and Council Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011, Official Journal of the European Union L 304 of 22.11.2011, p. 64-88.
[3] See par. 4.2.8 of the Guidelines on the interpretation and application of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, OJ C 526 of 29.12.2021, p. 1-129.
[4] See press release published on the OCCP website on October 27, which stated that “consumers in complaints about Uber Eats indicated that they were unaware of the additional charge at the food selection stage – it only appeared when they paid for their order.” Press release available at: https://uokik.gov.pl/aktualnosci.php?news_id=17931&print=1
On 12 April 2022, the Act of 9 February 2022 was published in the Journal of Laws, thereby introducing provisions on corporate groups (the so-called holding law) previously unknown to the Polish legal order into the Commercial Companies Code. Moreover, these amendments also include provisions significantly expanding the competencies of supervisory boards intended to increase the effectiveness of corporate supervision, as well as other changes related to, among others, the terms of office of members of corporate bodies and rules governing their liability.
The new provisions will enter into force 6 months from their date of publication, i.e., 13 October 2022.
We present the most important aspects of the enacted amendments below.
HOLDING LAW
Corporate groups
The amendments allow existing holdings to establish, so-called, corporate groups if the conditions specified in the Act are fulfilled.
With respect to formal requirements, the subsidiary or related company’s Shareholders’ Meeting (General Meeting) must adopt a resolution on its membership in the corporate group. However, the majority of the rights and duties associated with membership in the corporate group will only arise after a company’s membership therein is registered in the National Court Register.
What are the effects of membership in a corporate group? – Binding instructions and liability
First and foremost, the amendments provide that, in addition to their own interests, companies being members of a corporate group can also pursue the corporate group’s interest, insofar as they do not aim to harm creditors or the subsidiary’s minority partners of stockholders.
Parent companies gain new management tools in the form of, so-called, binding instructions, which they will be entitled to issue to subsidiaries being members of the corporate group. A subsidiary’s management board, as the entity to which such instructions are directed, will be obliged to carry them out. Refusal will be possible only in strictly defined situations. Both binding instructions, as well as the acceptance or refusal to perform them, must satisfy strict formal requirements, which will impact their validity.
Parent companies will be liable for harm suffered by their subsidiaries resulting from the performance of their binding instructions. With respect to wholly-owned subsidiaries, the parent company’s liability for compensation will be narrower and limited to cases where the performance of binding instructions caused the subsidiary’s insolvency.
To the extent provided for in the Act, parent companies will also be liable to a subsidiary’s creditors or minority partners (stockholders) for certain consequences of the subsidiary’s performance of the binding instructions.
Members of a subsidiary’s management board, supervisory board and audit committee, as well as its liquidator, shall not be liable towards the subsidiary for harm caused by the performance of binding instructions.
Squeeze out provisions and other parent company entitlements
The parent company will be entitled to buy-out the shares (stock) held by the minority partners (stockholders) of its subsidiaries (a so-called ‘squeeze-out’), even where the subsidiary is a limited liability company (spółka z ogranoczoną odpowiedzialnością) (which is a novelty in comparison to the law as it currently stands) or a simple joint-stock company (prosta spółka akcyjna).
They will also be entitled to, at any time, review the books and documents of subsidiaries being members of the corporate group and request information from them.
The parent company’s supervisory board (or, in its absence, its management board) will, as a rule, exercise ongoing supervision over the pursuit of the corporate group’s interests by subsidiaries being members of the corporate group.
Rights of minority partners (shareholders) in subsidiary companies
The amendments entitle minority partners (stockholders) to demand the compulsory purchase of the shares of stock they hold in the subsidiary (a so-called ‘sell-out’).
Minority partners or stockholders who hold, either alone or jointly with other partners of stockholders, at least one-tenth of the share capital will be entitled to demand that the registry court appoint an audit firm to audit the corporate group’s accounts and activities.
STRENGTHENING THE POSITION OF SUPERVISORY BOARDS
Another important change relates to the competencies of supervisory boards, which have been significantly expanded. In particular, they now include the right to demand information and documents, including in particular information, reports and/or explanations concerning subsidiaries and related entities.
It is worth noting that the Act provides for criminal penalties, in the form of fines or limitations on liberty, if information or documents are not provided in a timely manner, the information or documents provided do not reflect the actual state of affairs, or data with a material effect on their content is not disclosed.
Supervisory boards will be entitled to appoint an external advisor who, at the company’s cost, will examine a specified matter regarding the company’s activities or financial condition.
In joint-stock companies (Spółka Akcyjna), supervisory boards will gain one additional competence – their consent will be required for transactions with companies with respect to which the company in question is a subsidiary or a related entity if the value of such transactions within a given financial year exceeds 10% of the company’s total assets (for transactions with the same company).
In addition to their new entitlements, supervisory boards will also be subject to expanded reporting duties.
Strengthening the position of supervisory boards necessitates increased information obligations on management boards, however, only in the case of joint-stock companies. The management boards of such companies will be obliged to provide their supervisory boards with detailed information on a range of matters concerning the company, including its material transactions, resolutions adopted by the management board, and changes in the company’s situation, without being called to do so.
OTHER CHANGES
Introduction of the business judgment rule with respect to the members of the corporate bodies of limited liability companies and joint-stock companies – this rule is based on the exclusion of liability for harm caused to the company as a result of decisions which turned out to be faulty, provided that they were taken within the limits of reasonable business risk and were based on information, opinions, and analyses adequate to the circumstances.
The terms of office of the members of corporate bodies of limited liability companies and joint-stock companies shall be calculated in full financial years (unless the articles of association or statute provide otherwise).
Codification of the duty of loyalty for members of the corporate bodies of limited liability companies and joint-stock companies.
ENTRY INTO FORCE
The Act provides for a 6-month vacatio legis, which will allow companies to make any potentially necessary amendments to their articles of association (statutes) in order to comply with the new legal regime. The new provisions will enter into effect on 13 October 2022.
On 24 March 2022, the Law of Ukraine “On the Arrangement of Employment Relations under the Martial Law” No. 2136-IX of 15 March 2022 (“Law No. 2136“), which defines the peculiarities of employment relations during martial law, entered into force.
According to paragraph 2 of Section “Final Provisions” of Law No. 2136, Chapter XIX “Final Provisions” of the Labour Code of Ukraine (the “Labour Code“) was supplemented by provisions stating that the restrictions and peculiarities defined by Law No. 2136 apply to the labour relations during the martial law, imposed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Legal Regime of Martial Law”. That said, in relation to certain labour issues during martial law the provisions of Law No. 2136 will prevail over the provisions of the Labour Code.
Form of an Employment Agreement and Probation Period
According to Article 2 of Law No. 2136, during martial law the parties can agree on the form of the employment agreement. Thus, temporarily, the provisions of Article 24 of the Labour Code, according to which the employment agreement is generally concluded in writing, do not apply.
In addition, Law No. 2136 amended the provisions of Article 26 of the Labour Code regarding the ban on setting the probation period for certain categories of employees (in particular, persons under the age of eighteen, pregnant women; single mothers with a child under the age of fourteen or a child with a disability, etc.). Specifically, during martial law, any category of employees may be put on probation at the time of their recruitment.
Also, according to Law No. 2136, the employer may enter into fixed-term employment agreements with new employees for the period of martial law or for the period of replacement of temporarily absent employees, including in cases of actual absence of employees who were evacuated to another area, employees on leave, employees during downtime, temporarily disabled employees or whose location is temporarily unknown.
Change of Essential Working Conditions
According to Article 3 of the Law No. 2136, during martial law, the employer has the right to transfer the employee to another work, which is not stipulated in a respective employment agreement, without the employee’s consent (except for the transfer to work in another area where active hostilities are taking place). Also, the requirement of Article 32 of the Labour Code to provide a 2-months’ prior notice regarding a change of essential working conditions does not apply.
Law No. 2136 provides for the following mandatory conditions for change of essential working conditions:
such work shall not be contraindicated for the employee due to health reasons;
such change is necessary solely to prevent or eliminate the consequences of hostilities and other circumstances that endanger or may endanger lives or normal living conditions of people; and
the salary for the performed work under changed working conditions shall not be less than the average monthly salary for work under the previous working conditions.
Working Hours and Rest Period
According to Law No. 2136, the following provisions of the Labour Code do not apply during the martial law: Article 53 (work duration before holidays, non-working days, and weekends), part 1 of Article 65 (overtime limits), parts 3 to 5 of Article 67 (transfer of weekends), and Articles 71-73 (holidays and non-working days).
Importantly, during martial law an employee’s normal working hours shall not exceed 60 hours per week and 50 hours per week for employees to whom the law applies the reduced working hours (such as employees involved in work with harmful working conditions – in accordance with Article 51 of the Labour Code, etc.).
The employer sets out the start and end time of a working day (shift) and may reduce the duration of the weekly uninterrupted rest to 24 hours (to compare, under Article 70 of the Labour Code the duration of the weekly uninterrupted rest must be at least 42 hours).
Vacations
Law No. 2136 introduces important alterations in relation to vacations, namely:
if the employee works at critical infrastructure facilities, the employer has a right to deny any kind of such employees’ leave (except for maternity leave and parental leave to care for a child up to the age of three); and
at the employee’s request, the employer has a rightto grant an unpaid leave and time restrictions, established by part 1 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine “On Leaves”, do not apply to such unpaid leave.
Suspension of Employment Agreement
Article 13 of the Law No. 2136 provides for a new concept of suspension of the employment agreement. According to Article 13 of the Law No. 2136, suspension of the employment agreement is a temporary release of the employer from the obligation to provide the employee with work and a temporary release of the employee from his/her obligation to perform work under the employment agreement. The employment agreement may be suspended due to the military aggression against Ukraine which prevents the employee from performing his/her duties under the employment agreement.
As noted by the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine in its commentary to the Law No. 2136- (commentary as of 23 March 2022), the main condition for suspension of the employment agreement is an absolute impossibility for the employer to provide the work, and for the employee – to perform the same. Thus, any absence of work or downtime cannot serve as a reason for suspension of the employment agreement. Importantly, suspension of the employment agreement does not entail termination of employment relations, thus, the parties shall comply with other terms of the employment agreement (for instance, concerning confidentiality of information or intellectual property rights).
The Law No. 2136 does not establish neither a procedure for suspension of the employment agreement nor notification deadlines. At the same time, the Law No. 2136 provides that the employer and the employee should, to the extent possible, inform each other in any available way. Thus, both the employer and the employee can initiate the suspension of the employment agreement. Given that a lot of employment agreements were concluded in writing (which was the general rule before imposition of martial law in Ukraine), in our opinion, the suspension of the employment agreement should be formalised in writing as well (for instance, as applicable, by written notice to the relevant party, an additional agreement to the employment agreement (contract) or via e-mail).
The Law No. 2136 provides that expenses for reimbursement of salary, guarantee and compensation payments to employees for the period of suspension of the employment agreement shall be borne by the country conducting military aggression. However, the procedure and mechanism for such reimbursement is not established yet. In addition, in the case of non-payment of salary, the employer will face an issue regarding single social contribution (the “single contribution“). In the opinion of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, if in case of suspension of the employment agreement the employer suspends the payment of salary, there is no ground for charging the single contribution. At the same time, there are no additional official clarification from the tax authorities how to reflect the grounds for non-payment of the single contribution in case of suspension of the employment agreement.
Termination of Employment Agreement
Termination of the employment agreement at the initiative of the employee
Law No. 2136 provides that the employee may terminate the employment agreement upon employee’s own initiative without two-weeks prior notice due to the hostilities in areas where an enterprise, institution, or organisation is located, as well as due to the existence of a threat to life and health of the employee. In this case, the employee may terminate the employment agreement on its own initiative within the time specified in the employee’s application.
As an exception, the abovementioned amendments do not apply to employees that are engaged to perform socially useful works during martial law or work at critical infrastructure facilities. According to the Law of Ukraine “On Critical Infrastructure” No. 1882-IX of 15 November 2021, critical infrastructure objects are infrastructure objects, systems, their parts, and totality, which are important for the economy, national security and defence, disruption of which may harm vital national interests, in particular, energy and water supply facilities, transport and information communications facilities, chemical and healthcare facilities, etc.
Termination of the employment agreement at the initiative of the employer
During martial law, the employee may be dismissed at the initiative of the employer even during an employee’s leave or temporary disability (except for maternity leave or parental leave to care for a child up to the age of three). The date of dismissal has to be the first working day after the end of the temporary disability, specified in the document on temporary disability, or the first working day after the end of the employee’s leave.
Driven by our commitment to Ukraine and Ukrainian people, we decided to share our pages with our colleagues from EVERLEGAL, the law firm from Kyiv. From now on, we will be publishing materials prepared by them both on our website and on our social media profile. By doing this, will not only give voice to those, who need our assistance right now but also we are giving the most complimentary legal knowledge to our clients.
EVERLEGAL, established in 2015, is the independent Ukrainiansector-focused law firm, one of TOP-10 in Ukraine and consists of 50 lawyers and attorneys who provide clients with high quality legal services.EVERLEGAL expertise and experience are evidenced by the leading positions in international rankings (Chambers Europe & Global, Legal 500 EMEA, IFLR1000, Best Lawyers) in Energy, Corporate and M&A, Employment, Banking & Finance and Dispute Resolution practices. EVERLEGALteam joins forces and continues to work, support the army, help the people who suffered during the full-scale war of Russia against Ukraine.
In first EVERLEGAL information, you can find the summary on employment matters made in a Q&A format in Ukrainian and English languages.
At the same time, we would like to warmly welcome the EVERLEGAL team who is preparing the information:
Can an employer on its own initiative dismiss a mobilised employee during martial law?
No. According to Part 3 of Article 119 of the Labour Code of Ukraine (the “Labour Code“), a mobilised employee (until the end of a special period or until the day of an actual dismissal of such an employee from military service) retains the place of his/her work, position and average salary. The average salary of such an employee has to be calculated in accordance with the Procedure for Calculating the Average Salary, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 100 dated 8 February 1995 (as further amended).
According to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Defence of Ukraine”, a special period commences from the moment of announcement of mobilisation or martial law in Ukraine and covers mobilisation time, wartime and partial reconstruction period after the end of hostilities. On 24 February 2022 the President of Ukraine by his Orders imposed martial law and declared mobilisation.
There is a special ground in the labour legislation of Ukraine, which provides for the possibility of dismissal of an employee in case of enlistment in the military (paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 36 of the Labour Code), but it does not apply during a special period.
Can an employer dismiss a mobilised employee if the fixed-term employment agreement (contract) expires during martial law?
No. During the special period, such an employee retains the place of work, position and average salary (part 3 of Article 119 of the Labour Code), even if the term of the employment agreement (contract) has expired. Once the special period ends, the employer has the right to dismiss such an employee.
Can an employer dismiss a mobilised employee due to liquidation of the company?
Yes. The liquidation of the company constitutes the ground for dismissal, inter alia, of mobilised employees (paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 40 of the Labour Code).
Ukrainian law does not oblige the employer to further employ such dismissed mobilised employees. However, the employer is still obliged to ensure other labour guarantees provided for in the event of dismissal of employees due to company’s liquidation (for example, employer’s obligation to notify employees of dismissal in two months prior to such dismissal, to submit the information on the planned mass dismissal to local authorities of the State Employment Service of Ukraine, etc.).
What actions should the employer take in case of mobilisation of the company’s director?
The director has to issue an order on transfer of the director’s powers to the deputy director or other employee for the period when the director is absent, if the company’s charter (articles of association) provide for the possibility of transferring powers by the director. If such an employee (deputy director) is not registered as an authorised person (a “signatory”) in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations (the “Register”), it is advisory to additionally issue a power of attorney to such an employee (deputy director).
If the company’s charter (articles of association) does not provide for the director’s right to transfer powers and the relevant employee (deputy director) is not recorded as an authorised person (a “signatory”) in the Register, the transfer of the director’s powers to another employee (deputy director) will require a decision of the general (shareholders’) meeting or supervisory board (if the supervisory board has the relevant authority to approve such decisions). If possible, it is advisable to record information on such an employee (deputy director) as an authorised person (signatory) in the Register.
The transfer of the director’s powers to the other employee (deputy director) does not require a legal change of director or introduction of the changes to the information on the director in the Register, because the mobilised director remains employed and retains his position.
Can an employer dismiss an employee who has entered into a territorial defence under a volunteer contract?
No. Volunteers of territorial defence (who has entered into the relevant contract) retain their work places, positions and average salaries (Part 3 of Article 119 of the Labour Code). If the territorial defence volunteers have not entered into the relevant contracts, the said guarantees of labour legislation do not apply to them.
Can an employer dismiss an employee for “absenteeism” because of the employee’s absence at work due to hostilities and related circumstances?
No. The dismissal of an employee who does not show up at work due to hostilities and related circumstances for “absenteeism” is prohibited (paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Article 40 of the Labour Code).
The law does not explicitly prohibit the dismissal for “absenteeism” of an employee who does not show up for work in an area where there are no active hostilities. However, dismissal for “absenteeism” is possible when there is no “valid reason” for an employee’s absence at work. Although currently there is no official interpretation of “valid reasons” in the context of martial law in Ukraine, the State Labour Service of Ukraine does not recommend dismissing employees for “absenteeism” during the martial law.
What actions should an employer take if an employee is absent at work due to hostilities and related circumstances?
If employees have moved or gone abroad, are volunteering or cooperating with the territorial defence(but have not signed a contract of the volunteer of territorial defence), or are otherwise unable to perform their labour duties due to other circumstances related to hostilities, the employer has the following several options for formalising the status of such employees:
if the employer is NOT aware of the exact reasons of the employee’s absence
to record the absence of the employee as “absence for unknown reasons” (Ukrainian symbol “НЗ”) or as “other reasons for absence” (Ukrainian symbol “I”) and adjust the timesheet accordingly after establishing that the reasons for absence were valid;
if the employer is AWARE of the exact reasons of the employee’s absence, but the employee is unable to perform his/her labour duties
to formalise paid leave (annual, social) or unpaid leave (under agreement of the parties or mandatory unpaid leave in accordance with the list and terms of such leave provided by law);
if the employer is AWARE of the exact reasons for the employee’s absence and the employee is fully or partially able to perform his/her labour duties
to formalise the remote work of such employee;
to formalise the part-time work of such employee;
to set a flexible work schedule for such employee.
What actions should the employer take if the company stops working due to hostilities?
The employer must declare a business interruption (downtime) (Part 1 of Article 34 of the Labour Code). During the downtime, the employer has to pay salaries to the employees in the amount of at least two-thirds of the tariff rate set for the employee category in accordance with Part 1 of Article 113 of the Labour Code.
In case of downtime, the employer may, taking into account the speciality and qualifications of employees and upon their consent, transfer them:
for another job at the same enterprise, institution, organisation for the entire period of downtime;
to another enterprise, institution, organisation, but in the same area for up to one month.
Even during downtime, the mobilised workers and/or volunteers of the territorial defence (under the contract) retain their workplaces, positions and average salary until the end of the special period.
Ukrainian citizens and certain categories of third-country nationals and stateless persons have been granted temporary protection under Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022. Working on the foundations of this temporary protection and in order to implement the Council’s decision, Poland has adopted the Act of 12 March 2022 on support for citizens of Ukraine in connection with the armed conflict in the territory of the said country (the “Special Law”). The Special Law grants Ukrainian citizens a longer period of legal stay in Poland, simplifying procedures related to their employment, decentralizing the registration of Ukrainian citizens and assigning them a Polish national identification number (PESEL), as well as giving access to medical care and many financial benefits, including parental benefits.
STATUTORY LEGALIZATION OF STAY IN POLAND UNDER THE SPECIAL LAW
For a period of 18 months (i.e., until 24 August 2023), the stay of any Ukrainian citizen and their spouse, who entered the territory of Poland from 24 February 2022 directly from Ukraine and declares their intention to stay within the territory of Poland is deemed to be legal. This legalization of stay also covers children born in Poland after 24 February 2022 to mothers being Ukrainian citizens, who crossed the Polish-Ukrainian border after that date. Furthermore, the Special Law legalises the stay of Ukrainian citizens holding a Polish Card (Karta Polaka) and their close relatives without having to satisfy the condition of direct entry into the territory of Poland.
The departure of a Ukrainian citizen from the territory of Poland for a period of more than 1 month deprives them of their right to legally stay in Poland under the Special Law.
MANDATORY REGISTRATION
If a person whose stay is deemed legal under the Special Law and who entered the territory of Poland on the basis of a national passport, birth certificate, or any other document not being a biometric passport, or without any documents whatsoever, they are obliged to register with any executive authority of a given municipality (gmina) within 60 days of their date of entry, in order to be assigned a national identification number (PESEL). This obligation does not apply to persons who entered Poland on the basis of a biometric passport.
OBTAINING A NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PESEL)
Possessing a PESEL significantly aids a foreigner’s ability to act within Poland and communicate with state authorities, as well as simplifying the practical provision of medical care in Poland. Therefore, it is recommended that all persons intending to stay in Poland on the basis of the Special Law apply for a PESEL to be assigned to them. Such applications, signed by the applicant themselves, are submitted in writing to any municipality administrative office (urząd gminy) in person. In the case of a minor (i.e., persons under the age of 18), it is sufficient for such applications to be submitted only by one parent/caretaker, a legal guardian, or a person deemed to be a temporary caretaker under the Special Law or a person acting as a minor’s de facto guardian.
The application form will be available as a bilingual document, in Polish and Ukrainian. The application can be completed by either the applicant or an employee of the municipality administration office in which it is submitted on the basis of data supplied by the applicant. The application should include a photograph and documents confirming the person’s identity (translation of these documents into Polish is not necessary). Persons applying for the assignment of a PESEL shall also submit a declaration stating that they arrived in Poland directly from Ukrainian territory and that the details they supplied are correct, subject to criminal liability for making a false declaration. The municipality administration office will take the applicant’s fingerprints and keep a copy of the documents submitted confirming the applicant’s identity (note that cancelled or expired documents can also be used for this purpose if they allow for the applicant’s identity to be confirmed).
The details of persons who apply for a PESEL under the Special Law shall be kept in a special register maintained by the Minister for Digitization. As part of the process of obtaining a PESEL, it is also possible to automatically create a Trusted Profile (Profil Zaufany) on the Polish public e-services platform (ePUAP), which facilitates communication with public authorities and courts (in the future, it would be useful to also enable access to government portals in Ukrainian).
EXTENSION OF STAY BY OBTAINING A TEMPORARY PERMIT
Persons whose stay has been deemed to be legal may apply, no earlier than 9 months from their date of entry to the territory of Poland and no later than 24 August 2023, for a temporary permit to extend their legal stay in Poland for an additional 3 years, as of the date on which the decision is issued. Such a permit is issued by the appropriate Voivode (provincial governor; wojewoda), effective from the application’s filing date. Persons holding a temporary permit are entitled to work in Poland without being subject to the usual restrictions concerning foreigners (i.e., the requirement to hold a work permit/statement on the delegation of work, or the employer being subject to a notification duty under the Special Law).
EMPLOYMENT
Under the Special Law, Ukrainian citizens may enter into employment in Poland. This applies both to persons whose stay has been deemed to be legal under the Special Law as well as persons whose stay in Poland is legal on other grounds.
This is done by way of a delegation of work by a particular entrepreneur. The entity delegating work to a Ukrainian citizen must notify the appropriate county labour office (powiatowy urząd pracy) within 14 days of said citizen beginning their employment. The entity delegating work must give such notice electronically through the praca.gov.pl system. This notice must include, among others, the entity’s taxpayer identification number (NIP) and statistical number (REGON) (or their national identification number (PESEL)). This means that the system does not allow for the delegation of work by foreign entrepreneurs. Thus, only Polish entrepreneurs, or local branches of foreign entrepreneurs, as holders of a NIP and REGON, will be able to delegate work to Ukrainian citizens in Poland.
UNDERTAKING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
Persons whose stay in Poland has been deemed to be legal under the Special Law or the Act on foreigners (thus, excluding those whose legal stay is governed by the Act on granting protection to foreigners within the territory of the Republic of Poland), can undertake business activities on the same terms as Polish citizens (i.e., as a sole proprietorship, by means of an entry in the Central Registration and Information on Business (Centralna Ewidencja i Informacja o Działalności Gospodarczej; CEIDG), as well as an unregistered business activity or through partnerships and capital companies). In such cases, obtaining a national identification number (PESEL) is a prerequisite to undertake business activities in Poland under the provisions of the Special Law.
At the same time, we would also note that, even before the Special Law came into effect, Ukrainian citizens were able to undertake business activities in accordance with Article 4 of the Act of 6 March 2018 on the principles for the participation of foreign entrepreneurs and other foreign persons in business activities in the territory of the Republic of Poland (the “Act on the principles of participation”). This Act permits persons lacking a PESEL to undertake business activities.
In light of the above, there exist doubts as to whether the obligation to possess a PESEL arises solely to the extent that the provisions of the Special Law are more favourable than those of the Act on the principles of participation, or rather that the Special Law imposes a duty to possess a PESEL on all Ukrainian citizens whose stay has been deemed legal under the Special Law or who are legally staying in Poland under the Act on foreigners (e.g., by holding a temporary residence permit), regardless of the form by which they undertake business activities in Poland.
BENEFITS AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT
The Special Law provides for a number of benefits for Ukrainian citizens, including medical care (i.e., access to doctors, hospitals, etc.), a one-time financial payment of PLN 300 (an application for this payment can be submitted at a local social welfare centre (ośrodek pomocy społecznej)), as well as many parental benefits. Accessing most benefits is conditional on a person being assigned a PESEL.
TRAVELLING WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION
The Special Law does not serve as a legal basis under which Ukrainian citizens may apply for a travel document authorising them to travel within the EU. Therefore, in principle, only Ukrainian citizens holding a biometric passport (thus falling within the visa-free regime) or who have been issued a visa by an EU Member State have the right to move freely within the EU for 90 days within a 180-day period. The absence of such provisions in the Special Law may limit the free movement of Ukrainian citizens within the EU in respect of their ability to choose their final destination.
Ukrainian citizens will have the possibility to apply, 9 months after their date of entry into Poland, for a temporary residence permit valid for 3 years, which would entitle them to receive a residence card once a decision is issued granting them a residence permit. However, there remains no basis to issue a foreigner with a Polish travel document that would remedy their lack of a biometric passport as a travel document.
On February 7, 2022, an amendment to the Passenger Name Record Data Processing Act went into effect, which is intended to offset the negative effects of the current state of the law on the airline industry.
It will soon be 4 years since Poland implemented the Directive of 27 April 2016 on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crimes. Following the EU regulation, the Passenger Name Record Data Processing Act was enacted on May 9, 2018. This is a natural turn of events, and no one would have been thrilled by this fact had it not been for the subsequent activity of the border guards, which brought negative consequences for the aviation sector
TO WHOM THE NEW RULES APPLY
Based on the introduced law, each carrier is obliged to send detailed data of each transported passenger to the border guards. A special IT system, into which the carrier enters all the required information, is responsible for the implementation of this regulation throughout Europe. The problem is that at the beginning of the introduction of these requirements this system was not available in Poland for many reasons. Some carriers sent data following the previously applicable rules, while others unknowingly entered them into the system, not knowing that the Polish authority does not have access to it. Implementation of the directive by the market participants in practice took almost 3 years and currently 98% of carriers from around the world landing at Polish airports implemented its provisions.
SEVERE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DATA
This should not be a problem, but it is. With the implementation of the Directive Poland has introduced severe penalties for each failure to provide data to the border guards – up to 40 000 PLN per flight. What is the solution in a situation where incomplete or incorrectly transmitted data from the last 3 years concerned as many as a hundred thousand flights? Commander of the Border Guard, from the beginning of 2020, began to punish carriers in an avalanche for each offence separately. The sector was threatened with penalties worth a total of PLN 4 billion! It should be remembered that most of these entities are not even based in Poland, and the decisions were sent by post. Firstly, in the era of the pandemic, their delivery was burdened with considerable problems, and secondly, most entrepreneurs receiving a letter in Polish cannot expect that they have just received a penalty of about 8000 euros, which may soon be subject to enforcement (including seizure of the aircraft at a Polish airport).
RESPONSIBILITY
The Directive stated that it is the responsibility of Member States to provide the means for carriers to transmit PNR data to the responsible parties. The implementation in Poland was not preceded by any such process, nor was an information campaign conducted. It is difficult to require an entity that does not have a representative office of its operations in Poland to follow the Journal of Laws and the newly introduced regulations, especially if it lands in Poland several times a year.
Other EU countries were much more lenient on the market, not penalizing violations unless they occurred intentionally.
PROTESTS
The Act was understandably strongly opposed by the aviation industry as one that could effectively impede the development of the industry in Poland, especially when the market is just beginning to recover from the pandemic. After repeated attempts by market representatives to contact representatives of the Polish government, at the end of 2021, the procedure of amendments to the Act began.
AMENDMENT AND CHANGES
On February 7, 2022, its amendment came into force, which allows carriers to catch a second breath. Under it, the Chief of the Border Guard will not initiate proceedings against carriers for the next 2 years, and any proceedings initiated to date will be suspended for the same period. Enforcement proceedings will not be possible.
The amendment to the Act, together with the amendments voted through, is a small nod to the aviation sector which has been inundated with passenger data processing proceedings in recent months. It is intended to provide time to obtain a response from the EU Commission to change its approach to the proceedings in Poland.
However, carriers should monitor legal changes so as not to expose themselves to further risks associated with the administrative penalties issued. It is certainly necessary to continue the work of the legislator to achieve the final solution that is optimal for the market.
Along with the suspension of proceedings, the time of punishability limitations was also suspended. Therefore, the Commander of the Border Guard will return to these cases in 2 years, especially since the previous 3-year period of the statute of limitations has been extended to 5 years.
In the remaining scope, the amendment implements the departmental assumptions, i.e. it allows for conducting proceedings and imposing penalties also by border guard divisions, it assumes the possibility of considering numerous violations to one administrative proceeding and thus, the amount of penalty in a given proceeding will potentially significantly increase. This will also have positive effects, as administrative courts have so far been reluctant to suspend enforcement of a decision due to an important interest of a party. If the penalty grows to several hundred or even a million PLN, such an argument will be unquestionable.
______________________________________________________________________
Please feel free to contact Jadwiga Stryczyńska, the author of the alert, an expert from the aviation law, transport and logistics team.
On 31 October 2021, with the last part of the amended provisions of the Act on Counteracting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism entering into force, certain aspects of how the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (Centralny Rejestr Beneficjentów Rzeczywistych) functions have changed.
1. Expanded catalogue of entities obligated to register with the CRBO
The catalogue of entities required to file information on their beneficial owners has been expanded to include:
trusts, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which reside in the territory of the Republic of Poland,
trusts, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which enter into business relationships or acquire real estate within the territory of the Republic of Poland for and on behalf of the trust,
European Cooperative Societies (societas cooperativa Europaea or SCE),
associations subject to registration in the National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy),
foundations.
Deadline for submissions to the CRBO
The following entities should file notices with the CRBO by 31 January 2022 inclusive:
trusts identified in point 1) above, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which resided in the territory of the Republic of Poland prior to 31 October 2021,
trusts identified in point 2) above, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which entered into business relationships or acquired real estate within the territory of the Republic of Poland for and on behalf of the trust prior to 31 October 2021,
entities identified in points 3) to 9) above, which were entered into the register of entrepreneurs of the National Court Register prior to 31 October 2021.
However,
trusts identified in point 1) above, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which reside in the territory of the Republic of Poland since 31 October 2021 or later,
trusts identified in point 2) above, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which entered into business relationships or acquired real estate within the territory of the Republic of Poland for and on behalf of the trust since 31 October 2021 or later,
entities identified in points 3) to 9) above, which were entered into the register of entrepreneurs of the National Court Register on 31 October 2021 or later,
should file notices with the CRBO within 7 days of the date of their entry in the register of entrepreneurs or, in the case of a trust, the applicable condition being fulfilled, respectively.
2. Citizenship of beneficial owners
Under the new rules concerning the CRBO, all citizenships held by beneficial owners are subject to disclosure in the CRBO.
Companies which filed information on their beneficial owners with the CRBO prior to 31 October 2021 and the beneficial owners of which include persons holding more than one citizenship as on 31 October 2021, are subject to a duty to file information on the additional citizenships held by such beneficial owners (not previously notified to the CRBO) by 30 April 2022.
3. No obligation to file information with the CRBO on all members of corporate bodies or partners authorized to represent the company
The obligation to file information with the CRBO on all members of corporate bodies or partners authorized to represent companies entered in the CRBO no longer applies. From 31 October 2021, only the information of those persons filing information with the CRBO on behalf of a given entity will be subject to registration with the CRBO (in particular, their full name, citizenship, country of residence, PESEL or – if they lack a PESEL – date of birth, and function or role authorizing them to file information with the CRBO).
Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1132, as amended)
Amendments introduced by the Act of 30 March 2021 on amendments to the Act on Counteracting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Certain Other Acts (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 815)
On 18 November 2021, a draft law was published on the protection of persons who report breaches of law with the goal of implementing the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law into the national law. The period for the implementation expires on 17 December 2021. Currently, the draft law has been sent to public consultation. Since the main mechanism preventing individuals from reporting such breaches is the fear of retaliation, the principal purpose of the Directive and the implementation law is to provide a proper level of protection to whistleblowers.
WHO IS A WHISTLEBLOWER?
According to the provisions of the Directive and the implementation draft law, a whistleblower is a natural person who, thinking of the welfare of an organization where they are employed or the public welfare, reports on information (including a justified suspicion) they have obtained in the context of their employment, about breaches of law which have occurred or are likely to occur in that organisation.
First of all, it is the employee who becomes a whistleblower. In most cases, it is the employees (former and current), usually with long seniority, who report the breaches. According to the provisions of the Directive and the implementation draft law, apart from the employees, the following persons can be considered whistleblowers: job applicants, individuals performing work other than under employment agreement, entrepreneurs, shareholders, partners, members of the legal entity’s organisational bodies, individuals under the supervision and direction of contractors, subcontractors or suppliers, interns and volunteers.
PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION
The principal goal of the Directive is to protect a person reporting information about law breaches against retaliation or negative consequences related to reporting the law violations. At the level of the implementation draft law, such protection is provided through several legal means depending on the status of a whistleblower.
A whistleblower performing work under an employment agreement cannot experience disadvantageous treatment because of making the report. Disadvantageous treatment should be interpreted broadly, including, but not limited to, a refusal to establish employment, termination of employment upon notice or termination of employment without notice, reduction of remuneration or withholding of promotion. The employer may discharge themselves of liability for the above actions by proving that their reasons were objective, i.e. if they are able to prove that the deterioration of the employee’s situation was not related to the reporting they made. Otherwise, they will be obliged to pay damages to the employee of at least the minimum amount of remuneration.
As a general rule, comparable protection will be available to individuals performing work otherwise than under employment agreement, e.g. under a contract of mandate – it will not be allowed to treat them differently because of the reporting. Disadvantageous treatment would involve, in particular, termination or refusal to establish a legal relationship, unless the other party proves that their reasons were objective. In case of disadvantageous treatment other than termination of the contract, the employing entity will be obliged to pay damages of at least the minimum amount of remuneration. Moreover, pursuant to the draft law, the unilateral legal act of terminating the legal relationship (e.g. termination upon notice or a statement of termination without notice) because of the reporting will be ineffective.
According to the provisions of the draft law, in connection with making the report, the whistleblowers would also be protected against their disciplinary liability as well as liability for any damage arising due to the infringement of the rights of others or their obligations set out in the provisions of law, and in particular, with regard to defamation, infringement of personal rights, breach of copyright, breach of personal data protection rules, breach of secrecy (including trade secrets). A whistleblower would be entitled to this type of protection only if the person making the report has justified reasons to believe that the report is necessary to reveal a breach of the law.
Similar protection rules apply to persons assisting in making the report or connected to the persons reporting the breaches. In addition to the above-mentioned consequences, pursuant to the draft law, implementing retaliation against a whistleblower will be subject to a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to three years.
GOODWILL OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER MATTERS
Both, in the provisions of the Directive as well as the implementation draft law, the protection for the whistleblower is not absolute and depends, first of all, on their motives for making the report. Namely, the whistleblower would be protected on the condition that they have justified reasons to believe that the information about the breach of law qualifying for reporting is true at the moment of reporting. The whistleblower should not be motivated by their own interest, but the welfare of the organization where they work (or have/would have worked) or the public welfare. Secondly, the protection is conditional on following the required order of action – as a rule, first, the report should be made within the organisation or to the dedicated authorities, and only when it does not bring any effect – it should be brought to the media.
Should you have any questions, please contact the author of the alert – Agata Miętek.
We kindly encourage you to review the currently pending legislative proposals and recent changes in the area of employment law. In the latest WKB newsletter, you will be able to learn more about: remote work, whistleblowers protection, an amendment to the Social Security System Act and obtaining information on employees’ vaccinations.
REMOTE WORK
Since May 2021, the government has been working on regulating the principles of remote work
in the Labor Code. The primary purpose of the new regulations is to clarify the rights and obligations of employers and employees related to the performance of work outside the workplace, including, primarily, health and safety obligations, as well as protection of data provided to the employee.
In recent weeks, additional changes have been introduced to the project, covering i.e.:
clarification that the place of remote working is to be agreed with the employer in each case;
the possibility of filing a request to cease remote work at any time (both by the employer and the employee);
increase in the limit of so-called “occasional remote work” (from 12 to 24 days
per calendar year), which does not require fulfilling some of the obligations covered
by the proposed amendment.
The amendment will come into force after three months from the end of the epidemic in Poland.
We would like to remind you that until the introduction of remote work to the Labour Code, employers may resort to temporary regulations resulting from the so-called „Anti-Crisis Shield”, providing for the possibility of ordering remote work. The aforementioned right is granted to employers during the period of the epidemic threat or epidemic state, declared due to COVID-19, and in the period of 3 months after their revocation.
Currently, the project is at the stage of agreements, opinions and public consultations.
WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION
By 17 December 2021, employers employing 250 or more employees should implement procedures to ensure appropriate protection of whistleblowers (i.e. individuals who report violations of EU law). This obligation results from Directive (EU) 2019/1937of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (the „Directive”). As of the date of the newsletter, there are no Polish regulations in this area. Therefore, until appropriate Polish law is enacted, employers should use EU regulations as guidance.
The Directive introduces the obligation to implement:
a mechanism allowing whistleblowers to report irregularities in a way that preserves the confidentiality of their data (an appropriate procedure and, e.g. an internal organizational whistleblowing channel);
a protection system for whistleblowers;
rules for investigating reported irregularities.
For each of these elements, the Directive formulates specific requirements.
The Directive contains a catalogue of areas that may be affected by violations. These include i.a. public procurement, product safety and compliance, privacy, protection of personal data and security of networks and information systems.
Pursuant to the Directive, protection will apply not only to employees but also to sole entrepreneurs, shareholders, partners and members of the administrative, management or supervisory body, volunteers and trainees (regardless of whether they are remunerated).
The main purpose of the new regulations is to prohibit retaliation against whistleblowers. Employers should not undertake actions like dismissal, transfer to a lower position (demotion), withholding a promotion, or not extending or early termination of a fixed-term employment contract.
Despite the fact that the first draft of the law implementing the Directive has not yet been presented, employers should already start working on introducing appropriate procedures to enable whistleblowers to report irregularities and ensure their effective protection.
The directive also imposes obligations regarding reporting and the investigating system as well as whistleblower protection system on employers engaging from 50 to 250 employees, however with an extended deadline (until 2023).
AMENDMENT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM ACT
On 19 August 2021, the President signed an amendment to the Act on Social Security System and certain other acts.
The amendment provides for a number of changes in the area of social insurance, below
we present those which in our opinion are the most significant.
shortening the period of receiving sickness benefit after the termination of employment
Until now, an employee who became sick within 14 days from the date of termination
of employment could receive a sickness benefit for a maximum of 182 days. This period has been reduced by half and as of 1 January 2022, this period will amount to 91 days (in most cases).
combining periods of incapacity to work within the benefit period
Under the currently applicable law, an employee may receive a sickness benefit for a maximum of 182 days (in the case of tuberculosis and during pregnancy – 270 days).
Until now the above limit was applicable to one disease, which means that if an insured person falling ill with another disease it was not included in the 182-day limit.
Under the amendment, the type of illness will no longer be relevant for determining the benefit period. In practice, this means that if an insured person within 60 days from the date of termination of a previous incapacity to work falls ill with another disease, the period of such incapacity will be included in the 182-day limit. Once the 182-day limit has been reached, the employee will have to work a minimum of 60 days to claim sickness benefits again.
The above regulations will become effective as of 1 January 2022.
social insurance coverage for partners in one-person limited liability companies (sp. z o.o.) and in partnerships
The amendment also introduces changes in social insurance coverage for partners in one-person limited liability companies, general partnerships, partnerships and limited partnerships. These persons will be covered by the insurance obligation from the date the company is entered into the National Court Register or from the date of acquisition of shares in the company, regardless of whether the company conducts business activities, generates income, employs individuals.
The above regulations will become effective as of 18 September 2021 r.
OBTAINING INFORMATION ON EMPLOYEES’ VACCINATIONS
The government is working on draft legislation allowing employers to obtain information about employees’ COVID-19 vaccinations.
According to the information presented in the list of legislative works of the Council of Ministers, employers will be entitled to verify whether employees have had COVID-19 infection in the past or are currently not infected with COVID-19. Upon obtaining such information, employers would be entitled to make decisions on:
posting an employee to work outside the permanent place of work,
posting an employee to another type of work with remuneration corresponding
to the type of work, or
sending the employee on unpaid leave.
At the same time, and more opinions can be heard stating that the law will not be submitted to parliamentary work. This is due to the fact that the description of the Act in the list of legislative works of the Council of Ministers raised many doubts and controversies, especially in the area of obtaining information on the health of employees by the employer, as well as the possibility of sending unvaccinated employees on unpaid leave.
The employers will have to be patient as the works on the law on obtaining information
on employees’ vaccinations will take some time.
On 17 August 2021, the Polish Council of Ministers approved the updated draft of the bill to amend the Commercial Companies Code (“CCC”) and certain other acts. The draft bill was then submitted to the Polish Parliament on 23 August 2021.
Compared with the draft published half a year ago, the August 2021 draft does not introduce significant changes.
The primary purpose of the bill is to introduce into Polish law novel legal regulations in respect of holdings and moreover a range of amendments strengthening the position of supervisory boards, by providing them the tools needed to more effectively exercise corporate supervision.
We present the most important provisions of the draft amendments below.
HOLDING LAW
Corporate groups
The draft amendments allow existing holdings, i.e., structures consisting of companies related to each other based on dominant and subsidiary relationships, including de facto holdings, to collectively do business within a newly proposed legal framework for, so-called, corporate groups.
According to the proposed definition, a corporate group consists of a parent company and its subsidiary or subsidiaries, pursuing a common business strategy in order to achieve a common interest, justifying the parent company’s exercise of uniform management of the subsidiary or subsidiaries.
At the core of the planned amendments is the assumption that, in addition to their own interests, companies being members of a corporate group should also pursue the corporate group’s interests (i.e., a common business strategy), insofar as it aims to harm creditors or the subsidiary’s minority partners or stockholders. This is a significant departure from the traditional perspective of Polish companies law, according to which each company should first and foremost pursue its own interests and not the interests of the capital group to which it belongs.
Among the amendments proposed is the repeal of Art. 7 CCC which regulated management agreements in respect of subsidiaries (contractual holding). In light of this amendment, the holding law as drafted would be based entirely on common institutions for both de facto and contractual holdings.
According to the draft bill, corporate groups will be able to benefit from holding law provisions if their member companies satisfy specific formal requirements, i.e.:
the subsidiary’s Shareholders’ Meeting or General Meeting must adopt a resolution on its membership in the corporate group, indicating the parent company, by a three-quarters majority of votes, and
both the parent company and the subsidiaries must disclose their membership in the corporate group in the Polish Register of Entrepreneurs by making the appropriate entry in the register (where, in the case of parent companies with a foreign seat, it is sufficient that the subsidiary disclose its membership in the corporate group in its register, indicating the parent company).
The provisions of the holding law will only apply to a given company and the members of its corporate bodies after the membership of said company in the corporate group is registered and disclosed in the Register of Entrepreneurs.
Further, membership in a corporate group will cease as a result of either the subsidiary’s Shareholders’ Meeting or General Meeting adopting a resolution, under the same majority requirements as mentioned above, on ending its membership, or the parent company gives notice to the subsidiary that its membership has ended.
Companies being members of a corporate group will be required to state their membership in a corporate group in their notices and commercial orders as well as on their websites.
In the latest version of the draft bill, the provisions regulating the scope of corporate groups were amended. On the one hand, the current wording of the draft bill allows for the application of the provisions on corporate groups to companies related to the parent company, if provided for in the related company’s articles of association or statute. On the other hand, the draft bill excludes subsidiaries being public companies, bankrupt companies or companies in liquidation, if they have begun the division of their assets, from its scope.
Moreover, in connection with the entry into force of provisions concerning a new form of commercial company – the simple joint-stock company (prosta spółka akcyjna) – on 1 July 2021, the draft bill amending the CCC should be read in the context of Art. 4 §§ 21 and 22 pt. 1 CCC. Under these provisions:
the provisions on management boards and members of the management board should be, in principle, applied accordingly to simple joint-stock companies in which a board of directors is appointed;
wherever the CCC refers broadly to the stockholder’s participation in the share capital, this should also be understood as the proportion of shares held by a simple joint-stock company’s stockholder to the total number of shares of stock issued in such company.
If no further changes are made to the draft then, in effect, the provisions of the draft holding law, despite expressly referring to the concept of share capital and directly regulating the status of members of the management board in the corporate group, will also equally impact corporate groups in which simple joint-stock companies are members, even where a board of directors is appointed in such a company.
Binding instructions of the parent company
According to the draft bill, the parent company will be entitled to issue binding instructions (in written or electronic form, under pain of invalidity) to its subsidiaries being members of the corporate group, in respect of the management of the company’s affairs, if justified by the corporate group’s interests. At a minimum, such instructions should state the:
actions which the parent company expects the subsidiary to take in connection with the performance of the binding instructions,
corporate group interest justifying the subsidiary’s performance of the parent company’s instructions,
expected benefit or harm to the subsidiary being a consequence of its performance of the parent company’s instructions, and also
the manner and time in which the harm suffered by the subsidiary as a result of its compliance with the parent company’s instruction is foreseen to be remedied.
The performance of binding instructions will require the prior adoption of a resolution of the subsidiary’s management board containing, at least, those parts of the binding instructions referred to above. The subsidiary will also be required to notify the parent company of the adoption of such a resolution, or its refusal to perform the binding instructions.
A subsidiary may consider refusing to perform binding instructions in the following circumstances:
performing the instructions would result in its insolvency, or the threat of insolvency
in the case of companies other than those wholly owned and where the articles of association or statute do not provide otherwise – also in the case of justified concerns that the instructions are contrary to the interests of said company and that the company would suffer harm which would not be remedied by the parent company or another subsidiary being a member of the corporate group within two years from the event causing said harm.
In the latter case, the management board, when assessing the potential harm to the subsidiary which may result from its performance of the binding instructions, will need to take into account the benefits achieved by that time on account of the subsidiary’s membership in the corporate group.
According to the draft bill, a resolution refusing to perform binding instructions should be made prior to their performance and should include a justification. Note that the draft bill provides for the possibility to reserve additional conditions for refusal in a company’s articles of association or statute.
Parent company liability for the results of binding instructions
Parent companies will be liable for compensatory damages towards subsidiaries being members of the corporate group for the results on their performance of the parent company’s binding instructions. Such liability, based on the principle of presumed fault, will arise if the harm is not remedied within the period indicated in the instructions. At the same time, with respect to wholly-owned subsidiaries, the parent company’s liability will be narrower and limited to cases where the performance of binding instructions caused the subsidiary’s insolvency.
The liability of the parent company will be determined taking into account its duty of loyalty to the subsidiary in issuing and performing the binding instructions.
To the extent provided for in the draft amendments, the parent company will also be liable to a subsidiary’s creditors and minority partners (shareholders) for the results of the subsidiary’s performance of its instructions.
Liability of members of group companies’ governing bodies
Members of the management board, supervisory board and audit committee, as well as commercial proxies and liquidators, of companies being members of a corporate group will be entitled to rely on the fact that their acts or omissions were undertaken in pursuit of a specific corporate group interest, provided that the company disclosed its membership in the group in the National Court Register.
As a rule, members of the management board, supervisory board and audit committee, as well as liquidators, of a subsidiary will not be subject to civil liability for harm caused by the performance of the parent company’s instructions. However, provisions regulating the exclusion of such persons criminal liability were not included in the draft bill. We would note that, for example, in the case of the act stipulated in Art. 299 of the Criminal Code, it will not be possible to claim that a person acting as instructed failed to properly perform their duties or acted in excess of their authorization insofar as those actions resulted from the instructions themselves. From this perspective, it would not be possible to impose criminal liability.
Protection of the parent company
The draft bill provides for a protection mechanism for the parent company, allowing it to effectively manage the corporate group, by permitting it to undertake a compulsory buy-out of the shares (stock) held by minority partners (shareholders) in its subsidiaries (a so-called ‘squeeze-out’). This mechanism can also be applied to subsidiaries being limited liability companies (spółki z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością) (which is a novelty in comparison to the law as it currently stands) as well as simple joint-stock companies (which will result from the incorporating reference in Art. 4 § 22 pt. 1 CCC).
Parent companies will be entitled to, at any time, review the books and documents of subsidiaries being members of the corporate group at any time and to request information from them.
A parent company’s supervisory board (or, in its absence, the management board) will, as a rule, exercise ongoing supervision over the pursuit of the corporate group’s interests by subsidiaries being members of the corporate group.
Protection of minority partners (shareholders)
The annual management board reports on the activities of subsidiaries being members of the corporate group will be required to include an additional part concerning the contractual relationships between the subsidiary and the parent company for the previous financial year, indicating the binding instructions issued by the parent company to the subsidiary. Alternatively, such information may be included in a separate management board report.
Furthermore, minority partners or shareholders of subsidiaries being members of a corporate group which hold, alone or jointly with the company’s other partners or shareholders, at least one-tenth of its share capital, shall be entitled to demand that the registry court appoint an audit firm to audit the accounting and activities of the corporate group.
The draft bill allows for the possibility for a subsidiary’s minority partners (shareholders) to demand the compulsory purchase of the shares or stock they hold (a so-called ‘sell-out’).
STRENGTHENING THE POSITION OF SUPERVISORY BOARDS
Supervisory boards granted additional competences
In order to perform their duties, supervisory boards will be entitled to demand that the management board, commercial proxies, and all persons employed by the company (including persons employed under civil law agreements), provide any and all information, documents, reports and/or explanations necessary to supervise the company, in particular those concerning the company’s activities or assets, also with respect of subsidiaries or related entities. Non-executive directors of simple joint-stock companies will have analogous rights, where a board of directors is appointed with a distinction between the functions of executive and non-executive directors.
Supervisory boards will be authorized to adopt resolutions requiring that specific issues related to the company’s activities or its assets be audited (at the company’s cost) by an auditor of their choice, provided that such entity possesses the necessary professional expertise and qualifications to examine a given matter.
A duty, based on that applicable to joint-stock companies, will be introduced requiring that the consent of the supervisory board be obtained for a company to enter into transactions with its parent company, subsidiary or a related entity, if the total value of transactions with the same entity during a given financial year exceeds 10% of the company’s total assets, calculated on the basis of its most recently approved financial statements.
Moreover, the draft bill would amend the provisions on limited liability companies and joint-stock companies such that they expressly allow for the establishment of ad hoc or permanent committees within the supervisory board to perform specific supervisory functions (supervisory board committees). This will result in the harmonization of the legal regime applicable to all three forms of commercial companies, since, under the current version of the CCC, the ability to establish committees in a body is only expressly regulated in respect of simple joint-stock companies.
Additional duties of management boards
According to the draft bill, management boards will be required to provide supervisory boards with additional information on a range of specified matters, including material transactions, resolutions adopted by the management board, and changes to the company’s situation, without being called to do so. This mechanism is implemented in the CCC only in respect of joint-stock companies, however, note that the proposed provision may serve as a regulatory template which could be voluntarily added to the articles of association of a limited liability company or simple joint-stock company.
The draft bill provides for the imposition of criminal penalties on members of the management board, in the form of fines, limitation of their liberty if they fail to provide the supervisory board with the required documents and/or information, and also expands the catalogue of persons prohibited from acting as members of the governing bodies of capital companies to include persons convicted for the above offence.
Supervisory board reports
The duties of supervisory boards will now include the preparation and submission of an annual written report on their activities for the previous financial year (the supervisory board report) to the partners’ (or shareholders’) meeting or the general meeting.
In addition to an assessment of the company’s situation, a joint-stock company’s supervisory board report shall also include an evaluation of the company’s control and risk management procedures and an evaluation of the management board’s compliance with its duty to provide documents and information. In respect of other forms of capital companies, the scope of information to be included in such reports has been left to the companies themselves.
OTHER CHANGES
The terms of office of members of the governing bodies of limited liability companies and joint-stock companies will be calculated by complete financial years (unless the articles of association or statute do not provide otherwise), which will resolve the current doubts in practice regarding the period of time for which members of such companies’ governing bodies perform their functions.
It will now be possible to engage the services of a professional advisor when carrying out qualification proceedings in respect of members of the management board in limited liability companies and joint-stock companies.
Furthermore, following the example of the current provisions on simple joint-stock companies, the draft bill provides for:
the codification of the duty of loyalty in the relationship between a limited liability companies and joint-stock companies and the members of their governing bodies,
a more precise scope of the non-disclosure duty in the relationship between a limited liability companies and joint-stock companies and the members of their governing bodies – the prohibition on the disclosure of a company’s business secrets will also continue to be effective following the end of a members mandate in a governing body,
the introduction of the business judgment rule with respect to the compensatory liability regime applicable to members of the governing bodies of limited liability companies and joint-stock companies. This rule is based on the exclusion of liability for harm caused to the company as a result of decisions which turned out to be faulty, provided that they were taken within the limits of reasonable business risk and were based on adequate information under the circumstances.
PLANNED ENTRY INTO FORCE
The draft bill provides for a 6-month vacatio legis, as it is necessary for companies to amend their articles of association (statutes) to comply with the new legal regime.
If you have any questions related to any of the topics above, please contact the lawyers from our corporate law and corporate governance team and German Desk team: Anna Wojciechowska, Anna Fennig, and Krzysztof Wawrzyniak.
Draft bill to amend the Commercial Companies Code and certain other acts, submitted to the Polish Parliament on 23 August 2021.
The Best Practice for GPW Listed Companies is the code of corporate governance rules which all companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie; the “Exchange”) Main Market are subject to since 2002 (as soft law). The current edition of the Best Practice, adopted in 2016, was replaced by the Exchange Supervisory Board in its Resolution No. 13/1834/2021 of 29 March 2021, by a new edition (i.e. the Best Practice for GPW Listed Companies 2021) which came into force on 1 July 2021.
Why now?
The adoption of the new edition of the Best Practice was guided, among other things, by
a desire to reflect recent corporate governance trends and address proposals made by companies over the past several years. This has resulted in a simplification and condensation of the rules, while maintaining the rule that the Best Practice is applied according to the principles of proportionality and adequacy. The latter principle is well known to, so-called, regulated financial market participants, and is reflected, for example, in the method for assessing the suitability of members of regulated entities’ corporate bodies and the Polish Financial Supervision Authority’s recommendations on the need to introduce adequate and effective risk management and internal compliance systems. The inclusion of ESG matters in the Best Practice may indirectly result from the EU’s action plan for a sustainable EU economy (the European Green Deal) and the challenges faced by all of the Member States (climate neutrality). The new practices introduce a range of changes, the most important of which are described in this Alert.
Overall changes
The first and most visible change concerns the structure and presentation of the Best Practice, which differs significantly in that respect from the 2016 edition of the Best Practice – the division of clauses as either – typically “soft” – recommendations and specific principles subject to ongoing supervision has been eliminated. Almost all provisions concerning corporate governance have been classified as principles, presented separately in several thematic sections carried over from the previous edition of the Best Practice from 2016 (disclosure policy, investor communications; management board, supervisory board; internal systems and functions; general meeting, shareholder relations; conflict of interest, related party transactions; and remuneration). The Best Practice is supplemented by Guidelines on their application issued by the Exchange in a Q&A format.
New corporate governance standards
Several new key corporate governance principles have been added to the Exchange’s Best Practice, which includes:
A duty to integrate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) factors in their business strategy: the business strategy should include, in particular, environmental factors (including measures and risks related to climate change and sustainable development) as well as social and employment factors, including among others actions taken and planned to ensure the equal treatment of women and men, respect for workers’ rights and dialogue with local communities. Furthermore, companies are required (in order to ensure appropriate communication with stakeholders) to publish information on their website concerning their ESG strategy, which should, among others, explain how ESG factors are taken into account during the decision-making process and present the equal pay index for its employees (being the percentage difference between the average monthly pay of women and men in the last year).
A duty to implement a diversity policy: the duty to implement a diversity policy within companies has been clarified and extended in the new edition of the Best Practice by adding a new requirement to ensure the gender diversity of the management board and supervisory board by ensuring the participation of the gender minority group in each body be at least 30%. Persons making decisions on the election of members of the management board and the supervisory board should aim to achieve the abovementioned minimum participation of the gender minority group.
Enhanced communication with investors: companies (other than those being components of the WIG20, mWIG40 or sWIG80 indices) should hold, at least on an annual basis, meetings with investors at which the management board will present the financial results, situation and outlook, as well as publicly answer questions raised. Analysts, industry experts and the media should be invited to such meetings. Companies being components of the WIG20, mWIG40, or sWIG80 indices are required to hold such meetings for investors at least on a quarterly basis. Furthermore, the company’s general duty to provide investors responses to their questions within 14 days has been clarified. It is enough that an “investor” raises a question. The use of this word indicates that the authors of the Best Practice did not intend to limit this only to shareholders.
Communication of information regarding capital groups: the new edition of the Best Practice extends the scope of information which companies are required to disclose about their capital groups. The new principles provide for the duty to disclose information on, for example, expenditures by the company and its group in support of culture, sports, charities, the media, social organizations, trade unions, etc., and the manner in which the company’s and its group’s decision-making processes integrate climate change matters. Furthermore, during the meeting referred to in the point above held for investors, the company’s management board will also be required to provide information on the group’s financial results and on key events impacting the group.
Regulation of dividend policies: according to the new principles, companies are under an obligation to aim to pay out dividends. Companies may only retain all of their earnings in specific enumerated circumstances (for example, where the retention of the company’s earnings follows the recommendations of the authority which supervises the company by virtue of its business activity).
Conditioning the issue of new shares to a select group of entities (for example, the issue of shares with the exclusion of subscription rights while simultaneously granting pre-emptive rights to select shareholders or other entities) on the fulfillment of specific criteria.
Improved organization of general meetings: according to the new Best Practice, companies are required to provide a public real-time broadcast of the general meeting’s deliberations (this duty previously depended on the shareholding structure). Additionally, draft resolutions, other than those concerning points of order, should include a justification, unless it follows from the documentation tabled to the general meeting (this duty previously only applied to resolutions concerning important matters or matters giving rise to doubts, while with respect to other resolutions, the company was only required to “strive to ensure” that draft resolutions include a justification). Furthermore, the new Best Practice provides a deadline of 3 days prior to the general meeting for shareholders to table draft resolutions on matters put on the agenda of the general meeting and to nominate candidates for members of the supervisory board.
A duty to record dissenting votes in the minutes: the Best Practice clarifies the duty of members of the management board and supervisory board to notify their dissenting opinions if they conclude that a given decision conflicts with the interests of the company – the previous Best Practice did not expressly state such a duty.
The new principles, like the previous ones, are to be applied according to a comply-or-explain approach. Notwithstanding the adoption of new corporate governance principles, the Exchange has amended the Exchange Rules with respect to provisions laying down rules on disclosing compliance with the Best Practice and has made a new visualisation tool available.
The Exchange has also announced that it will monitor explanations regarding non-compliance with these principles in more detail. These actions, together with the changes implementing new corporate governance principles, should be viewed as a positive step aimed at increasing confidence in Polish capital markets, while also supporting with long-term goals (sustainable development).
Running a business in the pandemic era, including switching to remote working, has opened multiple doors for cyberattacks. Cybercriminals become more skilful in using new technologies and social engineering to their advantage. They know that human error is the key to success. A cyberattack may cause severe losses, including financial ones, for the company. To minimise potential losses, cybersecurity guidelines adopted by organisations should be given a closer examination.
Cybersecurity in the pandemic era
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the number of cybercrimes has increased significantly, including:
hacks into security systems, data breaches and confidential information theft;
blackmail through ransomware, i.e. computer software programmes that block access to data owned by the blackmailed company or disable the company’s usual operation. The latest example of such an attack is the case of the highly digitized Colonial Pipeline, USA;
money transfer fraud, pursued by rerouting a payment originally intended for the business partner to the fraudster’s bank account in another bank.
The latter category of incidents employs cyberspace and IT tools, in particular those used to interfere with electronic communication (business e-mail compromise), combined with social engineering, resulting in the impersonation of e.g. a contractor or an insider (e.g. director of the organization).
Caution is often not paramount during the pandemic. With the attention of entrepreneurs focused elsewhere: on maintaining business profitability, compensating for losses, and maintaining good relationships with the clients, criminals can get the upper hand. Ending pandemic restrictions and the accompanying enthusiasm can also be a critical moment facilitating cyberattacks. In such circumstances, the entrepreneur should pay special attention to cyber-security issues in its organization.
Disregarding the company’s current guidelines (procedures) or the lack thereof may result in detrimental financial, legal (e.g. due to a personal data breach) and reputational consequences. These may in turn be borne by individuals within the organization.
For these reasons, let us have a closer look at how cyber-compliance guidelines are used in practice to eliminate the risk of payments for the benefit of cybercriminals. We present a typical scenario below.
A (common?) case study
Two business partners (for the study, we assume that they are foreign business partners) maintain long-lasting business relationships under which Business Partner 1 purchases from Business Partner 2 goods necessary for production purposes. Payments for the delivery of goods are based on invoices forwarded in electronic form, via bank transfer to the bank account indicated on the invoices. The bank account has remained unchanged for years. Correspondence regarding payments is exchanged by e-mail. Persons who are responsible for financial matters on both sides stay in touch on an ongoing basis and their communication has a friendly tone.
Due to a significant order, a high-amount invoice is issued. The due date is near and Business Partner 1 receives a message from what seems Contractor 2’ legitimate email address. The alleged Contractor 2 wants to know when the payment will be made and requests that it be made to a different bank account. The reason is an audit which the usual bank account is currently undergoing.
The indicated bank account is maintained (again for the study) by a bank based in Poland, a country unrelated to the economic relationship between the Business Partners. The style and linguistic correctness of the email informing about the change of the bank account do not raise doubts as the latest correspondence is not different from previous emails. The e-mail address from which the messages are sent is seemingly legitimate and does not raise any doubts, either.
Once the number of new bank account has been sent, Business Partner 1 receives a series of enquiry messages requesting information on when the transfer will be made as well as asking for confirmation of the transfer.
Business Partner 1’s bank receives an order of payment and the transaction is made.
Whether Business Partner 1 sustains damage depends on how quickly they will become aware that they have fallen victim to fraud, as well as on the reaction of the bank keeping the account to which the money has been transferred.
The scenario may occur in many variants. How credible and genuine the misleading narrative has been may result from i.a. to what extent and for how long the company’s IT system has been compromised.
Diagnosis: how did that happen?
Common as it may seem, the implementation of the above scenario is a result of an array of mechanisms that lead to decisions harmful to the company.
First of all, cybercriminals break into the security software of the IT system. It enables them to monitor the organization’s activity from the inside, learning how it operates and obtaining data about its crucial transactions. Criminals can also obtain sensitive information about critical moments of the organization’s activities, such as the regional CEO’s visit or closing of the financial year. Such events may exert pressure, which may, in turn, result in lower vigilance concerning other spheres of the company’s operations. A security breach also enables cybercriminals to monitor the communication between the company and its contractor in terms of transactions settlements.
Such knowledge allows fraudsters to interfere at the right moment with the email correspondence on payments. They take control of business communication, including email forgery and interfere with the content of the correspondence.
Manipulation of e-mail correspondence is often carried out using e-mail addresses created for fraud, confusingly similar to those used by real contractors. Differences in e-mail addresses can be difficult to notice. For example, a capital “i” is replaced with the letter “L” written with a minuscule; a dash between two elements of the e-mail domain may be removed; one character may be added to the last element of thee-mail domain; and “.com” may be replaced with another TLD, e.g. “.eu” or “.pl”, depending on the context.
These changes are hardly discernible, especially in fast-paced business relationships. Quite often, as a result of interference with the IT system, cybercriminals take control of the e-mail address used by the contractor.
Cybercriminals are also capable of circumventing the requirements that may result from e.g. internal accounting procedures such as the issue of an invoice including information of a new bank account or confirmation by the contractor’s management that the bank account has been changed. Practice shows that such documents can be easily forged in the digital era, especially if cybercriminals have been carefully monitoring the company’s activities.
In addition to new technologies, fraudsters skillfully use social engineering techniques, knowing that their success depends on human error. Insider knowledge of the organization enables them to impose pressure on the decision-maker responsible for financial settlements or taking advantage of friendly communication between persons responsible for settlements on the part of the contractors. The pandemic itself creates fertile ground for manipulating reality.
Thus, features of communication such as style or language are important. In one case, the fraudster impersonating a contractor’s financial director called the financial director of a company obliged to make a payment to “confirm” the change of the bank account. According to the director who was the victim of the fraud, the person’s voice on the phone sounded like the actual voice of the financial director employed by the contractor.
All these measures aim to render the narrative about changing a bank account credible, even if the new bank account is maintained by a bank in an “exotic” country from the perspective of the business relations between the contractors. Internal payment processing procedures are also often breached (e.g. although paper invoices are required, the payment is made based on an invoice sent in electronic form).
Preventative measures
Often companies that have been attacked realize that the attack occurred only after a long period, whilst the more time passes from the unauthorized interference, the more harm it can cause.
In today’s world, the question of whether you might be subject to a cyberattack is rhetorical. The key question is when and how you will be attacked. To minimize the effects of cyberattacks, it is vital to implement and rigorously follow a few basic principles:
cyber-compliance, including training,
verification of the effectiveness of IT security systems,
crisis management in the event of a cyberattack.
If a transfer is made, the money is blocked by the bank and law enforcement authorities are notified, the authorities may decide to initiate criminal proceedings. It is advisable to join the proceedings as an aggrieved party. Joining the proceedings and starting a dialogue with the law enforcement authority may contribute to the faster release of funds and their return to the company. However, it should be taken into account that the funds may return to the victim only after a few months; in the same cases, it may take a year or longer.
Thus, following cyber-compliance guidelines and common sense, we should remember the golden rule: if something seems suspicious, it probably is and needs to be checked.
If you have any questions, please contact the co-head of the compliance department Aleksandra Stepniewska.
Die Novelle des Gesetzes vom 1. März 2018 zur Bekämpfung von Geldwäsche und Terrorismusfinanzierung, mit der die Regelungen der sog. 5. Geldwäsche-Richtlinie (des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (EU) 2018/843 vom 30. Mai 2018) in die polnische Rechtsordnung umgesetzt werden, tritt in Kraft.
Die acht wichtigsten Änderungen des Gesetzes vom 1. März 2018 zur Bekämpfung von Geldwäsche und Terrorismusfinanzierung („Gesetz”) umfassen:
1.Erweiterung und Präzisierung der Liste von Verpflichteten
Der Katalog von Verpflichteten wurde um Unternehmer, deren Tätigkeit mit Kunstwerken, Sammelgegenständen und Antiquitäten im Zusammenhang steht, in Bezug auf Geschäfte mit einem Volumen von mind. 10.000 Euro erweitert. Ferner gelten auch Unternehmer, die in steuerrechtlichen Angelegenheiten beraten, aber keine Steuerberater sind, ebenfalls als Verpflichtete.
2. Präzisierung mancher Begriffsbestimmungen, u.a. des Begriffs wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer
Nach dem Gesetz in der neuen Fassung gilt jede „natürliche Person”, die die Voraussetzungen gemäß Art. 2 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 erfüllt, als wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer, was bedeutet, dass bei Ermittlung des wirtschaftlichen Eigentümers stets alle möglichen Personen zu beachten sind, die eine der im Gesetz genannten Voraussetzungen erfüllen können.
3. Präzisierung der Regeln für die Anwendung finanzieller Sicherheitsmaßnahmen durch Verpflichtete
Im Rahmen der bestehenden Geschäftsbeziehungen wurde den Verpflichteten die Pflicht auferlegt, die Sicherheitsmaßnahmen auch dann anzuwenden, wenn die Angaben zum Kunden oder wirtschaftlichen Eigentümer geändert wurden bzw. der Verpflichtete im Laufe des jeweiligen Kalenderjahres lt. Gesetz verpflichtet war, den Kunden zur Überprüfung der Angaben zum wirtschaftlichen Eigentümer zu kontaktieren. Ferner wird der Verpflichtete beim Aufbau neuer Geschäftsbeziehungen eine Bestätigung darüber, dass der Kunde ins entsprechende Register wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer eingetragen wurde, oder eine Abschrift aus diesem Register besorgen müssen.
In Fällen, in denen Angehörige der Führungsebene als wirtschaftliche Eigentümer identifiziert wurden, müssen Verpflichtete auch die durchgeführten Maßnahmen zur Überprüfung der Identität des wirtschaftlichen Eigentümers nachweisen, vornehmlich alle Schwierigkeiten, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Überprüfungsvorgang aufgetreten sind.
Von Bedeutung ist auch, dass sich Verpflichtete, die ihrem Kunden gegenüber finanzielle Sicherheitsmaßnahmen anwenden, nicht nur auf Angaben im Zentralregister wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer oder im entsprechenden Register eines EU-Mitgliedstaates verlassen können. Folglich wird ein Registereintrag lediglich hilfsweise herangezogen und Verpflichtete müssen weiterhin aktiv handeln, um den wirtschaftlichen Eigentümer zu identifizieren.
Bisher enthielt das Gesetz lediglich Beispiele von Umständen, die auf ein erhöhtes Risiko von Geldwäsche oder Terrorismusfinanzierung hinweisen können, und bei deren Feststellung die Verpflichteten sog. verstärkte finanzielle Sicherheitsmaßnahmen anzuwenden haben. Die Verpflichteten konnten jedoch diese Sicherheitsmaßnahmen frei wählen, weil das Gesetz nicht einmal eine Zusammenstellung von Beispielen für die verstärkten finanziellen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen enthielt. In der neuen Fassung werden die Sicherheitsmaßnahmen teilweise definiert, indem ein Mindestkatalog von Maßnahmen eingeführt wurde, die von den Verpflichteten im Rahmen der verstärkten Maßnahmen zur finanziellen Sicherheit zu ergreifen sind.
5. Erhöhung der Schwellenwerte, bei denen von der Anwendung der finanziellen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen auf elektronisches Geld abgesehen werden darf
Nach dem bisherigen Gesetzeswortlaut war es zulässig, von der Anwendung der finanziellen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen auf elektronisches Geld abzusehen, sofern der elektronisch gespeicherte Betrag den Gegenwert von 50 Euro unterschritt. Der neue Schwellenwert beläuft sich nach den novellierten Regelungen auf 150 Euro, was seit langem von Zahlungsdienstleistern gefordert wurde.
6. Neue Frist für die Aufbewahrung von Unterlagen und Informationen durch Verpflichtete, die sie infolge der Anwendung der finanziellen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen erhalten haben
Nach den neuen Regelungen läuft die fünfjährige Frist für die Aufbewahrung von Unterlagen und Informationen, die durch Anwendung der finanziellen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen eingeholt wurden, ab Beendigung der Geschäftsbeziehung mit dem Kunden oder ab Abwicklung eines Gelegenheitsgeschäfts (also nicht wie bisher ab dem ersten Tag des Folgejahres nach Beendigung der Geschäftsbeziehung mit dem Kunden oder Abwicklung eines Gelegenheitsgeschäfts).
7. Pflicht zur Veröffentlichung und Aktualisierung eines Verzeichnisses öffentlicher Ämter und Funktionen durch die EU-Mitgliedstaaten, die nach dem nationalen Recht als politisch exponierte Ämter gelten
Nach der 5. Geldwäsche-Richtlinie hat jeder Mitgliedstaat Listen von inländischen politisch exponierten Ämter und Funktionen aufzustellen. In Polen wird das Verzeichnis von öffentlichen Ämtern und Funktionen, die politisch exponiert sind, von dem für öffentliche Finanzen zuständigen Minister im Wege einer Verordnung veröffentlicht.
8. Änderungen im Betrieb des Zentralregisters wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer und in der Überprüfung von Daten
Mit der Novelle wird der Katalog von Rechtsträgern, die verpflichtet sind, Angaben zu wirtschaftlichen Eigentümern zu übermitteln, um folgende Einrichtungen erweitert:
Trusts, deren Trustees oder Personen, die eine gleichwertige Position innehaben, auf dem Hoheitsgebiet der Republik Polen ansässig sind,
Trusts, deren Trustees oder Personen, die eine gleichwertige Position innehaben, auf dem Hoheitsgebiet der Republik Polen im Namen des Trusts oder für seine Rechnung Geschäftsbeziehungen eingehen oder eine Immobilie erwerben,
ins Polnische Gerichtsregister einzutragende Vereine,
Stiftungen.
Von Bedeutung ist, dass die Novelle den Verpflichteten vorschreibt, alle Abweichungen zwischen den von ihnen ermittelten Kundenangaben und den im Zentralregister wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer verfügbaren Daten zu vermerken. Gleichzeitig hat der Verpflichtete entsprechende Maßnahmen zur Klärung der festgestellten Abweichungen zu ergreifen. Sollten sich diese bestätigen, so hat der Verpflichtete diese Informationen nebst Begründung und Unterlagen zu den festgestellten Abweichungen an den für öffentliche Finanzen zuständigen Minister zu übermitteln. Das Verfahren zur Feststellung der Abweichungen ist auch als interne Anweisung des Verpflichteten festzuhalten.
Die Novelle sieht ferner die Möglichkeit vor, einem wirtschaftlichen Eigentümer, der der Pflicht zur Übermittlung einschlägiger Informationen an den zur Eintragung ins Zentralregister wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer verpflichteten Rechtsträger nicht nachgekommen ist, eine Geldstrafe (bis 50.000 PLN) aufzuerlegen; auch Rechtsträgern, die im Zentralregister wirtschaftlicher Eigentümer eingetragen sind und falsche Angaben übermittelt haben, kann eine Geldstrafe (bis 1.000.000 PLN) auferlegt werden.
Die Änderung gemäß Ziff. 1 tritt nach 3 Monaten ab Veröffentlichung des Novellierungsgesetzes, d.h. am 31 Juli 2021 in Kraft.
Die Änderung gemäß Ziff. 2 tritt nach 14 Tagen ab Veröffentlichung des Novellierungsgesetzes, d.h. am 15. Mai 2021 in Kraft.
Die Änderungen gemäß Ziff. 3 bis 8 treten nach 6 Monaten ab Veröffentlichung des Novellierungsgesetzes, d.h. am 31. Oktober 2021 in Kraft.
Die Gesetzesänderung bringt die Notwendigkeit mit sich, die internen Verfahren der Verpflichteten auf den neuesten Stand zu bringen (im Prinzip bis zum 31. Oktober 2021).
Unser Team für Gesellschaftsrecht und Corporate Governance sowie unser Team für Kapitalmärkte stehen Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung: Anna Wojciechowska (Rechtsanwältin, Partnerin), Agata Szczepańczyk-Piwek (Rechtsanwältin, Counsel), Anna Fennig (Rechtsanwältin) und Monika Obiegło (Rechtsanwältin).
Rechtsgrundlage: Gesetz vom 30. März 2021 zur Änderung des Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung von Geldwäsche und Terrorismusfinanzierung und mancher anderer Gesetze (Gesetzblatt Nr. 2021, Pos. 815).
New amendments to the Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, which transpose the provisions of the so-called 5th AML Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018) into Polish law, will be coming into effect.
The eight key changes to the Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism (the “Act”) are:
1.Expanding and clarifying the list of obliged entities
Entrepreneurs dealing in works of art, collectors’ items and antiques have been added to the catalogue of obliged entities, in respect of transactions worth 10 000 Euro or more. Additionally, entrepreneurs providing advice on tax matters, but who are not tax advisors, will now also be obliged entities.
2. Clarification of certain definitions, including that of beneficial owner among others
According to the amended text of the Act, a beneficial owner is understood as “each natural person” who fulfills the criteria set our in Art. 2 para. 2 pt. 1 of the Act, which means that when establishing the identity of the beneficial owners one should include all persons who could potentially satisfy any of the conditions stipulated in the Act.
3. More detailed rules on the application of financial security measures by obliged entities
Within ongoing business relationships, obliged entities will be under a duty to apply financial security measures also in cases where the client’s, or their beneficial owners’, information has changed or where the obliged entity is required by law to contact the client in order to verify the information on its beneficial owners during a given year. Additionally, when establishing new business relationships, obliged entities will be required to obtain proof of a potential client’s registration in the appropriate register of beneficial owners or an extract from such a register.
Further, where a person holding a senior management office is identified as a beneficial owner, obliged entities will be under a duty to document the actions performed to verify the identity of the beneficial owners, including in particular documenting any difficulties encountered in the verification process.
Significantly, when applying financial security measures in respect of their clients, obliged entities are not entitled to do so solely on the basis of the information entered in the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (Centralny Rejestr Beneficjentów Rzeczywistych), or the appropriate register maintained in another EU Member State. The contents of such entries are supporting in nature, and obliged entities will remain under a duty to act proactively in order to identify the beneficial owners.
4. Partial definition of enhanced financial security measures
The Act formerly only included a list of possible circumstances which could indicate a heightened risk of money laundering and terrorism financing, which if fulfilled would require that a given entity apply so-called enhanced financial security measures. However, obliged entities were free to tailor such measures themselves, as the Act did not even include an list of enhanced financial security measured by way of example. The Act as amended now partially defined such measures by introducing a minimum catalogue of actions which obliged entities must take when applying enhanced financial security measures.
5. Increased threshold for the application of financial security measures in respect of electronic money
The former wording of the Act allowed one to waive the application of financial security measures in respect of electronic money, so long as the amount stored electronically did not exceed 50 Euro. The new threshold set in the amended version of the Act is 150 Euro, which is a change long suggested by payment service providers.
6. Extended retention period for documents and information obtained by obliged entities as a result of their applying financial security measures
Under the new provisions, the five year retention period for documents and information obtained as a result of applying financial security measures is counted beginning on the date on which the business relationship with the client ends or the date on which an occasional transaction is completed (and so not from the first day of the year following that in which the business relationship with the client ended or the occasional transaction was completed, as was the case formerly).
7. EU Member States are under a duty to publish and update a list of public functions and positions which, according to their national law, qualify as prominent public functions
According to the 5th AML Directive, each Member State should prepare and publish a list of so-called “Domestic PEPs.” In Poland, the list of public functions and positions which are considered prominent public functions will be specified by way of a Regulation issued by the Minister competent for public finances.
8. Changes to the functioning of the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (CRBO) and the verification of data contained in it
The amendments expand the catalogue of entities which are required to file information on their beneficial owners by adding:
trusts, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which are resident in the territory of the Republic of Poland,
trusts, the trustees (or persons holding equivalent positions) of which enter into business relationships or acquire real estate within the territory of the Republic of Poland for and on behalf of the trust,
European Cooperative Societies (societas cooperativa Europaea or SCE),
associations subject to registration in the National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy),
foundations.
It is important to note that the amendments impose a duty on obliged entities to make note of any and all discrepancies between the factual state of affairs in respect of their client, as established by the obliged entity, and the data available in the CRBO. Simultaneously, obliged entities will be required to take the appropriate steps to explain such discrepancies, and if they are proven true, provide that information to the Minister competent for public finances together with the reasons for the discrepancies notes and documents pertaining to them. The obliged entity’s internal policies should provide for the manner in which discrepancies are noted.
Moreover, the amendments provide for the potential imposition of fines on beneficial owners who fail to perform their duty to provide the entities subject to registration in the CRBO with the appropriate information required to make an entry in the CRBO (up to PLN 50 000), as well as the potential imposition of fines on entities disclosed in the CRBO if they have submitted information to the CRBO which does not match the factual state of affairs (up to PLN 1 000 000).
The amendments described in point 1 above will enter into force 3 months after the amending act is published, i.e. on 31 July 2021.
The amendments described in point 2 above will enter into force 14 days after the amending act is published, i.e. on 15 May 2021.
The amendments described in points 3 to 8 above will enter into force 6 months after the amending act is published, i.e. on 31 October 2021.
As a result of the Act’s amendment, the internal procedures of obliged entities will need to be brought up to date (in principle, this should be done by 31 October 2021).
As in the previous year, due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and in response to proposals put forward by non-government organisations and economic operators, deadlines for the preparation of financial statements for 2020 have been extended.
This three-month extension concerns reporting obligations of
commercial companies,
civil-law partnerships,
other legal persons (except for the State Treasury and the National Bank of Poland),
unincorporated organisational units,
branches and representative offices of foreign enterprises,
non-profit organisations,
EXCEPTION: for publicly financed corporations, the statutory deadlines have been extended by a month.
According to the principles set out in the Accounting Act, the above-mentioned entities prepare financial statements for a financial year within three months after it ends.
If the financial year corresponds to the calendar year, the financial statements are prepared by 31 March (electronically, in the required logical structure and layout) and approved no later than within six months after the financial year ends, that is by 30 June. If an entity is entered in the National Court Register, the statements are then submitted to the Repository of Financial Documents within 15 days following their approval, hence by 15 July. If entities do not carry on business activity and are not entered in the National Court Register, financial statements are submitted electronically to the head of the National Fiscal Administration within 10 days following their approval, that is by 10 July.
What are the deadlines?
The extension of deadlines by three months means that for commercial companies, civil-law partnerships and other legal persons (except for the State Treasury and the National Bank of Poland), unincorporated organisational units, branches and representative offices of foreign enterprises, and non-profit organisations whose balance-sheet date was 31 December 2020, deadlines for preparation of financial statements for 2020 are as follows:
the final date for preparing financial statements is 30 June 2021;
financial statements shall be approved by relevant authorities by 30 September 2021;
for entities, which are entered in the National Court Register, financial statements shall be submitted to the Repository of Financial Documents within 15 days following their approval, that is by 15 October 2021, at the latest;
for entities, which do not carry on business activity and are not entered in the National Court Register, financial statements shall be submitted to the head of the National Fiscal Administration within 10 days following their approval, that is by 10 July 2021, at the latest.
The one-month extension for publicly financed corporations or entities
The aforementioned extension does not, however, concern publicly financed corporations or entities, which carry out the business activity, to which the provisions of Article 1.2 of the Act of 21 July 2006 on Supervision Over the Financial Market apply.
What are the deadlines?
Due to the extension of reporting deadlines for publicly financed corporations by a month, reporting deadlines under the Accounting Act are as follows:
the final date for preparing financial statements is 30 April 2021;
financial statements shall be approved by relevant authorities by 31 July 2021.
The changes laid out above are applicable to reporting obligations concerning the financial year ended after 29 September 2020, but no later than 30 April 2021, the deadline for the performance of which does not elapse before 31 March 2021.
Extension of deadlines for approving financial statements for housing cooperatives and some other entities
Moreover, the regulation includes a separate provision concerning the extension of deadlines for approval of financial statements for:
housing cooperatives – by six weeks following the end of the state of epidemiological risk or state of an epidemic; and
certain entities (which are not a company, limited joint-stock partnership, registered partnership or limited partnership whose all partners or shareholders having unlimited liability are companies, limited joint-stock partnerships, or foreign partnerships with a similar form) in which:
due to the number of members of approving bodies and lack of possibility
of convening them due to epidemiological restrictions,
it is impossible to adopt resolutions with the use of means of direct remote communication,
it is impossible to perform this activity within the timeframe specified in the Accounting Act – by six weeks after the above-mentioned conditions cease to exist.
Notably, the change described above shall be applicable to the approval of financial statements for fiscal years ended after 29 September 2020, hence the provision is not limited to FY2020, and shall also apply to the following financial years, if the state of epidemiological risk or state of an epidemic and related restrictions are still in effect.
Extension of deadlines for submitting the CIT-8 return and tax payment
Additionally, works are currently carried out to extend the deadline for submitting the CIT-8 return and tax payment. According to the proposed regulation of the Minister of Finance, Funds and Regional Policy concerning the extension of the deadline for submitting a return on the amount of profit (loss) and payment of due corporate income tax, it is proposed to extend the deadline for submitting the return on the amount of profit (loss) in the fiscal year ended between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021 and paying the relevant tax for corporate income taxpayers until 30 June 2021. This deadline would also concern taxpayers who have selected flat-rate tax on the profit generated by companies, in respect of which the first fiscal year begins between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2021.
Regulation of the Minister of Finance, Funds and Regional Policy amending the regulation of 26 March 2021 on defining other deadlines for performing obligations concerning recording as well as preparing, approving, disclosing and submitting statements of information to relevant register, entity or body.
Regulation of the Minister of Finance, Funds and Regional Policy on the extension of the deadline for submitting a return on the amount of income earned (loss incurred) and payment of the tax due by taxpayers of corporate income tax of March 25, 2021.
As of 1 January 2021, changes in the regulations regarding medical experiments, introduced in amendments to the Medical Profession Act, will come into force. As
a reminder, we would like to point out, that a clinical trial of a medicinal product is considered to be a medical experiment with a medicinal product performed on people.
The amendments in question will not affect any medical experiments with respect to which a bioethics committee has already issued or will issue an opinion before
1 January 2021. Therefore, the changes discussed in more detail further will not apply to any proceedings for the submission of an opinion on a proposed medical experiment which is initiated and not completed before the above date.
At the same time, we would like to underline, that ongoing legislative works continue with respect to the Act on Clinical Trials which are aimed at establishing an independent legal framework to conduct clinical trials of medical products in Poland. This Act is intended to adapt Polish regulations to the requirements of Regulation No. 536/2014. The draft is currently being prepared by the Council of Ministers and should be published shortly in order to undertake public consultations.
Entities conducting medical experiments must conclude an additional insurance contract for participants
Currently, under the Pharmaceutical Law, the Sponsor and the Investigator are obliged to conclude a civil liability insurance agreement for any damages caused in connection with the conduct of a clinical trial, i.e. for the acts or omissions of the Sponsor/Investigator which result in the personal injury, disease or death of the clinical trial’s participant. Therefore, the scope of insurance includes the liability of the Sponsor and the Investigator. The trial participant is not insured themselves. The trial participant must prove the Sponsor’s/Investigator’s fault in order to obtain compensation, which in practice may prove difficult.
From 1 January 2021, an entity conducting a medical experiment will be obliged to conclude a civil liability insurance contract in favour of the participant and also for any person who can be directly affected by the results of the experiment. The catalog of entities required to conclude an insurance contract is not clear. On the one hand, the literal wording of the Act suggests that the Investigator themselves is subject to this duty, as they conduct the medical experiment, but a draft of the implementing regulation suggests that it is the site at which the experiment is conducted. Note that the list of entities subject to this duty as stated in the draft regulation includes: research institutes, medical universities, and healthcare institutions associated with a medical university.
At first, it appeared that such insurance should cover the participant as well as their family. The amended act was drafted in such a manner as to suggest that the insurance contract should be concluded for the benefit of both the participant and persons who are directly affected by the experiment (the latter term also appears in the context of granting consent to conduct the study, which suggests that it refers to a family member).
Details regarding the scope of compulsory insurance, the date on which the obligation to purchase such insurance arises and the minimum guarantee amount are regulated further in the draft implementing regulation dated 13 November 2020, which has since been widely criticized by the medical community. The obligation to ensure civil liability arises no later than the day on which an application for an opinion on the medical experiment is submitted (however, this will be probably changed by stating that the obligation arises no later than the day preceding the day of the beginning of the medical experiment). The minimum guarantee amount for one event and all events is EUR 50,000 in the case of therapeutic experiments, and EUR 100,000 for research experiments.
As an aside, please note that the amended act allows for the insurance contract to be abandoned in exceptional cases and due to a direct threat to the participant’s life.
Additionally, it is worth bearing in mind that conducting a medical experiment without concluding a compulsory insurance contract as described above is subject to criminal sanctions – in such cases, the law provides for a fine of between PLN 1,000 and 50,000.
Who may grant permission to participate in a research experiment
The age limit from which a minor may give their consent to participate in an experiment has been lowered. Thus: i) if the participant is under 13 years of age, consent to their participation in the experiment is given by their legal representative; and, ii) if the participant is above 13 years of age, the consent of both the participant and their legal representative is required (in case of a disagreement between these parties, the matter will be settled by a court).
In the case of partially incapacitated persons, who are not under parental authority, consent shall be given by their curator or legal guardian (in case of a disagreement between these parties, the matter will be settled by a court).
If a person’s legal representative refuses to give consent for their participation in an experiment, such consent may be given by a court. The entity conducting the experiment may also apply to a court to grant consent for a person to participate in an experiment.
When is consent not required?
The possibility of conducting a therapeutic experiment without the prior consent of the participant or their legal representative has now been regulated. Thus, it is now possible to conduct a therapeutic experiment in the event that: i) the participant is incapable of giving consent, ii) there is an urgent case, iii) it is not possible to experiment on persons who are not in an urgent situation, iv) the participant has not previously objected, and vi) the participant or their statutory representative receives all relevant information.
It should be noted that the above conditions are cumulative and must be fulfilled together.
Penalty regulations for the performance of a medical experiment
Criminal sanctions have been introduced for the conduct of a medical experiment: i) without the required consent of the participant or the court’s authorization to participate in the study (subject to a penalty of imprisonment of up to 3 years), ii) in violation of the rights of the patient/participant, such as where an experiment is conducted on a person deprived of liberty (subject to a penalty of a fine, a penalty of restriction of liberty, or a penalty of imprisonment of up to 2 years), iii) without obtaining the positive opinion of the bioethics committee or against its conditions; or iv) without concluding a civil liability agreement in favour of the participant (both cases iii) and iv) are subject to a penalty of a fine of between PLN 1,000 and PLN 50,000). Regardless of the above, the grounds for criminal liability in respect of clinical trials are also regulated in Art. 126a of the Pharmaceutical Law, which partially overlaps with those noted above.
Participation of a minor in a research experiment
An additional condition was introduced concerning the participation of minors in research experiments.
To date, minors could take part in research experiments: i) if the expected benefits were directly relevant to the minor’s health, and ii) an experiment of comparable effectiveness could not be a performed with the participation of an adult. The Act added the condition that the experiment must significantly expand medical knowledge.
Additional right of participants
The use of a placebo is limited only to those situations where there are no other methods with proven efficacy or where the withdrawal/suspension of methods with proven efficacy does not represent an unacceptable risk or burden to the experiment’s participant.
Participation in a medical experiment must not delay or deprive the subject of medically necessary preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic procedures.
The new regulations also prohibit medical experiments using the forced position of the participant in such an experiment.
It is worth highlighting that the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Law regulating the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, together with, the regulation on Good Clinical Practice, are the applicable lex specialist, and will thus have priority over the Medical Profession Act.
On 30 November 2020, the laws on corporate income tax (CIT) were published in the Polish Journal of Laws, introducing changes in the tax rules applicable to partnerships.
As of 1 January 2021, limited partnerships will become CIT payers. The law makes it possible for limited partnerships to postpone the application of the new regulations, as a result of which they may become CIT taxpayers at a later stage, i.e. from 1 May 2021. General partnerships will also be affected (i.e. they will become CIT payers) if they fail to meet the conditions specified in the new regulations.
As a consequence of these changes, the popular structure of a limited partnership with a limited liability company as a general partner, as the optimal structure to do business especially in family-owned businesses, will become markedly less attractive.
Due to the very short period of time foreseen between the amendments’ adoption and their entry into force, entrepreneurs may not be able to adequately prepare for the upcoming changes, including changing the form in which they do business, which may expose them to serious financial consequences.
What amendments will be introduced to CIT?
As a result of the introduction of new regulations, income earned by a limited partnership, as well as by a general partnership which does not fulfill the conditions for an exemption, will be taxed both at the level of the partnership itself and its partners. Currently, the income of both limited and general partnerships is taxed only at the level of their partners, meaning that these partnerships are “tax transparent”. This makes them an attractive form in which to do business for entrepreneurs, in particular family-owned businesses. Compared to commercial companies (which are regulated by the Commercial Code), partnerships avoid the so-called double taxation of income earned by the company.
The above change will apply to all limited partnerships, regardless of revenues generated, the legal status of their partners, or their tax year (limited partnerships whose tax year is different from the calendar year will be obliged to close their books on the day preceding the day of becoming a CIT taxpayer).
In the case of general partnerships, they will be subject to CIT as a result of the introduced changes if not only natural persons are partners of the general partnership, and the general partnership fails to disclose to the tax authorities information concerning taxpayers of the personal income tax and corporate income tax, having, directly or through entities which are not taxpayers of the income tax (e.g. another general partnership), rights to participate in the profit of such general partnership. To comply with this requirement, it may, in certain situations, prove necessary to disclose a large part of a group’s structure, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which a given partner operates. This may not be a desirable solution for companies doing business on a smaller scale.
How to prepare for these changes?
Due to the relatively short period of time left before the amendments to the tax rules applicable to partnerships are expected to enter into force any reorganization measures planned by taxpayers should be undertaken as soon as possible.
However, there are significant limitations to the most obvious solution, which appears to be the transformation of a business from a limited partnership to a general partnership (which can be exempted more readily). In practice, the transformation process itself takes a minimum of three months. Moreover, such a change may have negative consequences for the partners on account of their safe status as limited partners being replaced by full liability for all business-related obligations.
Therefore, any reorganization measures require a careful analysis of both the potential benefits and any negative effects. However, these measures may not necessarily offset the expected tax losses. Such activities may also have an adverse impact on a business’s daily operations and functions.
Reorganization tailored to the business’s needs
The recommended course of action is to develop an optimal scenario from the perspective of both tax and commercial law, which will meet the needs of a given business, taking into account the specific characteristics of their business, such as its size or the risks associated with it.
Due to the very short timeline foreseen, it remains possible to rapidly prepare and implement interim solutions while continuing to work on an optimal scenario, which would require more time to develop and implement.
Where certain reorganization measures have already been implemented, or are in the process of implementation, it is worthwhile to further analyze them comprehensively in terms of their consequences for partners, and the possibility of mitigating risks related to them.
Entry into force
The new regulations will enter into force on 1 January 2021, however, limited partnerships may postpone the application of the new regulations on becoming a CIT taxpayer until 1 May 2021.
On 30 September 2020, a draft act amending the laws on corporate income tax (CIT) was published, which will introduce changes in the tax rules applicable to partnerships.
It is highly likely that limited partnerships will become CIT payers from 31 May 2021. General partnerships may also be affected (i.e. they will become CIT payers) if they fail to meet the conditions specified in the new regulations.
As a consequence of these changes, the popular structure of a limited partnership with a limited liability company as a general partner, as the optimal structure to do business especially in family owned businesses, will become markedly less attractive.
Due to the very short period of time foreseen between the amendments’ adoption and their entry into force, entrepreneurs may not be able to adequately prepare for the upcoming changes, including changing the form in which they do business, which may expose them to serious financial consequences.
What amendments are foreseen to CIT?
The draft amendments provide that income earned by a limited partnership, as well as by a general partnership which does not fulfill the conditions for an exemption, will be taxed both at the level of the partnership itself and its partners. Currently, the income of both limited and general partnerships is taxed only at the level of their partners, meaning that these partnerships are “tax transparent”. This makes them an attractive form in which to do business for entrepreneurs, in particular family owned businesses. Compared to commercial companies (which are regulated by the Commercial Code), partnerships avoid the so-called double taxation of income earned by the company.
The above change is intended to apply to all limited partnerships, regardless of revenues generated, the legal status of their partners or their tax year (limited partnerships whose tax year is different to the calendar year will be obliged to close their books at the end of 2020).
In the case of general partnerships, the draft act provides that they will be subject to CIT unless all persons deriving profits from the partnership are disclosed to the tax authorities. In order to comply with this requirement where the partners are not natural persons, it may prove necessary to disclose a group’s entire structure, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which a given partner operates. This will not always be possible, especially for large capital groups operating in jurisdictions where there is no obligation to disclose all of their shareholders and partners, and this may not be a desirable solution for companies doing business on a smaller scale either.
How to prepare for these changes?
Due to the relatively short period of time left before the amendments to the tax rules applicable to partnerships are expected to enter into force, any reorganization measures planned by taxpayers should be undertaken as soon as possible.
However, there are significant limitations to the most obvious solution, which appears to be the transformation of a business from a limited partnership to a general partnership (which can be exempted more readily). In practice, the transformation process itself takes a minimum of three months. Moreover, such a change may have negative consequences for the partners on account of their safe status as limited partners being replaced by full liability for all business related obligations.
Therefore, any reorganization measures require a careful analysis of both the potential benefits and any negative effects. However, these measures may not necessarily offset the expected tax losses. Such activities may also have an adverse impact on a business’s daily operations and functions.
Reorganization tailored to the business’s needs
The recommended course of action is to develop an optimal scenario from the perspective of both tax and commercial law, which will meet the needs of a given business, taking into account the specific characteristics of their business, such as its size or the risks associated with it.
Due to the very short timeline foreseen, it remains possible to rapidly prepare and implement interim solutions while continuing to work on an optimal scenario, which would require more time to develop and implement.
Where certain reorganization measures have already been implemented, or are in the process of implementation, it is worthwhile to further analyze them comprehensively in terms of their consequences for partners, and the possibility of mitigating risks related to them.
Status of the draft and planned entry into force
The legislative process is currently ongoing. On 7 October 2020, an attempt to reject the draft at first reading failed. The draft is currently being reviewed by the Public Finance Committee.
The new regulations are expected to enter into force on 31 May 2021.
If you have any questions relating to any of the above topics, please contact our lawyers from the corporate law and corporate governance team and the tax law team: Anna Wojciechowska, Łukasz Czekański or Krzysztof Wawrzyniak.
Am 5. August 2020 wurde die seit langem erwartete Gesetzesvorlage zur Novellierung des polnischen Gesetzbuches für Handelsgesellschaften veröffentlicht, mit der u.a. bisher unbekannte konzernrechtliche Regelungen erstmals den Weg in die polnische Rechtsordnung finden können.
Den Bedarf an neuen Rechtsvorschriften im Bereich des Konzernrechts haben polnische Unternehmer gemeldet, die im Rahmen herrschender und abhängiger Unternehmen tätig sind, und zwar oft in ausgebauten Konzernen, deren herrschende Gesellschaften im Ausland ansässig sind. Mit den vorgelegten Rechtsvorschriften wird einerseits das Ziel verfolgt, dem herrschenden Unternehmen die Führung polnischer Tochtergesellschaften bei Wahrnehmung der Konzerninteresse leichter zu machen, aber anderseits, der Tochtergesellschaft, ihren Minderheitsgesellschaftern und ihren Gläubigern entsprechenden Schutz zu gewährleisten.
Die Gesetzesvorlage sieht auch weitere Anpassungen des Gesetzbuches für Handelsgesellschaften, z.B. zur Steigerung der Effizienz von Aufsichtsräten, vor. In diesem Alert konzentrieren wir uns jedoch auf neue Regelungen im Bereich des Konzernrechts.
Unternehmensgruppe
Mit der Novelle werden bereits bestehende faktische Konzerne, d.h. Strukturen von herrschenden und abhängigen Unternehmen, in einen gesetzlichen Rahmen gesetzt, der als sog. Unternehmensgruppe bezeichnet wird.
Nach der in der Gesetzesvorlage enthaltenen Definition steht eine Unternehmensgruppe für ein herrschendes Unternehmen und ein oder mehrere von ihm abhängige Unternehmen, die entsprechend dem Gesellschaftsvertrag oder der Satzung des jeweiligen abhängigen Unternehmens eine gemeinsame Wirtschaftsstrategie (Gruppeninteresse) verfolgen, die dem herrschenden Unternehmen die Möglichkeit gewährt, das abhängige bzw. die abhängigen Unternehmen einheitlich zu leiten.
Eine der grundsätzlichen Voraussetzungen der geplanten Gesetzesnovelle ist, dass die an der Unternehmensgruppe beteiligten Unternehmen neben eigenem Interesse auch das Interesse der Unternehmensgruppe (d.h. die gemeinsame Wirtschaftsstrategie) wahrnehmen, sofern dadurch das berechtigte Interesse von Gläubigern und Minderheitsgesellschaftern bzw. -aktionären des abhängigen Unternehmens nicht verletzt wird. Dies ist eine bedeutende Abweichung von den bisherigen Grundsätzen des polnischen Gesellschaftsrechts, nach denen sich jedes Unternehmen im Wesentlichen von seinen eigenen Interessen und nicht von denen des Konzerns, zu dem es gehört, leiten lassen sollte.
Wie wird die Rechtsstellung einer Unternehmensgruppe erworben?
Nach der Gesetzesvorlage erhält ein faktischer Konzern die Rechtsstellung einer Unternehmensgruppe, indem:
eine gemeinsame Wirtschaftsstrategie der Unternehmensgruppe in den Gesellschaftsverträgen (Satzungen) der abhängigen Unternehmen festgelegt wird,
die Geschäftsführung des herrschenden Unternehmens über die Annahme einer gemeinsamen Wirtschaftsstrategie der Unternehmensgruppe beschließt,
das herrschende Unternehmen und die abhängigen Unternehmen die Teilnahme an der Unternehmensgruppe durch einen entsprechenden Registereintrag im Unternehmensregister offen legen.
Die Anwendung der konzernrechtlichen Regelungen auf das jeweilige Unternehmen und deren Organmitglieder ist erst dann möglich, nachdem es seine Teilnahme an einer Unternehmensgruppe im Unternehmensregister offen gelegt hat.
Unternehmen, die einer Unternehmensgruppe angehören, werden in ihren Briefen und Geschäftsbestellungen sowie auf ihren Websites ihre Zugehörigkeit zu der Unternehmensgruppe angeben müssen.
Vorteile aus der Rechtsstellung als Unternehmensgruppe
Nachfolgend finden Sie Vorteile, die sich aus der Rechtsstellung als Unternehmensgruppe ergeben.
Das herrschende Unternehmen kann dem abhängigen Unternehmen, die der Unternehmensgruppe angehört, verbindliche Weisungen (in Schrift-, Text- oder elektronischer Form) zur Führung seiner Geschäfte erteilen, sofern es durch Interesse der Unternehmensgruppe gerechtfertigt ist.
Momentan ist es in der polnischen Rechtsordnung unmöglich, dass ein herrschendes Unternehmen seinen abhängigen Unternehmen bindende Weisungen erteilt. Ferner ist es in der Rechtslehre umstritten, ob eine Gesellschafterversammlung der Geschäftsführung einer GmbH bindende Weisungen erteilen darf (dies ist in den Regelungen über Aktiengesellschaften ausdrücklich ausgeschlossen).
Die Mitglieder von Leitungs- oder Aufsichtsorganen des herrschenden bzw. abhängigen Unternehmens können sich auf das Interesse der Unternehmensgruppe berufen, um ihre zivilrechtliche Haftung gegenüber der geführten Gesellschaft für Schäden, die aus einer Handlung oder Unterlassung im spezifischen Interesse der Unternehmensgruppe resultieren, oder teilweise ihre strafrechtliche Haftung auszuschließen.
Momentan ist eine Handlung im Interesse der Unternehmensgruppe kein Grund dafür, dass die Mitglieder von Leitungs- oder Aufsichtsorganen von ihrer Haftpflicht gegenüber der Gesellschaft bzw. der strafrechtlichen Haftung befreit werden.
Das herrschende Unternehmen ist berechtigt, Bücher und Unterlagen des abhängigen Unternehmens, die der Unternehmensgruppe angehört, jederzeit einzusehen und Auskünfte zu verlangen.
Momentan sind in den Rechtsvorschriften über Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung und Aktiengesellschaften Fälle geregelt, in denen sich die Geschäftsführung weigern kann, dem Aktionär bzw. dem Gesellschafter Auskunft zu erteilen.
Der Aufsichtsrat des herrschenden Unternehmens (mangels des Aufsichtsrates – die Geschäftsführung des herrschenden Unternehmens) übt ständige Aufsicht über die Wahrnehmung der Interessen der Unternehmensgruppe durch die abhängigen Unternehmen aus.
In der jetzigen Gesetzeslage ist diese Möglichkeit nicht gegeben. Die Aufsicht über das jeweilige Unternehmen obliegt ausschließlich seinen eigenen Organen, nicht denen des Gesellschafters.
Das herrschende Unternehmen ist berechtigt, den Minderheitsgesellschaftern bzw. -aktionären des abhängigen Unternehmens Anteile oder Aktien zwangsweise abzukaufen (Squeeze-out).
Dass den Minderheitsgesellschaftern Anteile zwangsweise abgekauft werden können, ist ein Novum im Falle der GmbH. Der Squeeze-out ist dagegen in den aktuell geltenden Regelungen über Aktiengesellschaften vorgesehen. Die Voraussetzungen für die Anwendung des Squeeze-out im Rahmen einer Unternehmensgruppe sind jedoch gemäß der geplanten Gesetzesnovelle viel liberaler.
Ausführung einer bindenden Weisung des herrschenden Unternehmens
Zur Umsetzung einer vom herrschenden Unternehmen erteilten Weisung wird es eines Beschlusses der Geschäftsführung des abhängigen Unternehmens bedürfen. Ein solcher Beschluss kann gefasst werden, sofern dadurch die Interessen des abhängigen Unternehmens nicht verletzt werden bzw. wenn vernünftigerweise angenommen werden kann, dass der Schaden, der dem abhängigen Unternehmen infolge der Ausführung dieser Weisung entsteht, rechtzeitig (nicht länger als 2 Jahre ab dem Zeitpunkt des Schadenseintritts) durch das herrschende Unternehmen oder durch ein anderes Unternehmen aus der Unternehmensgruppe beseitigt werden kann.
Der Beschluss sollte u.a. erwartete Vorteile oder Nachteile bei dem abhängigen Unternehmen, die sich aus der Umsetzung der durch das herrschende Unternehmen erteilten Weisung ergeben, sowie die voraussichtliche Art und Weise sowie die Frist für die Beseitigung des Schadens bestimmen, der dem abhängigen Unternehmen aus der Umsetzung der Weisung entstanden ist.
Weigerung, eine bindende Weisung des herrschenden Unternehmens auszuführen
Nach der Gesetzesvorlage dürfen sich Geschäftsführungen von Einmanngesellschaften nicht weigern, Weisungen des herrschenden Unternehmens auszuführen. In anderen Fällen wird diese Weigerung aus den in der Gesetzesvorlage genannten Gründen zulässig sein (diese sind grundsätzlich damit verbunden, dass das abhängige Unternehmen dadurch insolvent wird oder einen Schaden erleiden könnte, der weder vom herrschenden Unternehmen noch von einem anderen Unternehmen der Unternehmensgruppe beseitigt wird). Die Weigerung, eine Weisung auszuführen, bedarf eines entsprechenden Beschlusses durch die Geschäftsführung des abhängigen Unternehmens (samt Begründung).
Haftung des herrschenden Unternehmens
Nach der Gesetzesvorlage wird das herrschende Unternehmen gegenüber dem abhängigen Unternehmen, das der Unternehmensgruppe angehört, für die Folgen haften, die sich aus der Ausführung der bindenden Weisung des herrschenden Unternehmens ergeben. Dies wird eine Verschuldenshaftung sein.
Die Novelle sieht sog. Business Judgement Rule (Prinzip der Handlung im Rahmen eines gerechtfertigten Geschäftsrisikos) vor, nach dem sich das herrschende Unternehmen von der obigen Verschuldenshaftung befreien kann, sofern es nachweislich im Rahmen eines gerechtfertigten Geschäftsrisikos, darunter aufgrund von Informationen, Analysen und Stellungnahmen, gehandelt hat.
Nach der Gesetzesvorlage wird das herrschende Unternehmen unter einigen Umständen für die Ausführung seiner Weisung ebenfalls gegenüber den Gläubigern des abhängigen Unternehmens sowie den Minderheitsgesellschaftern bzw. -aktionären haften.
Schutz von Minderheitsgesellschaftern bzw. -aktionären
Jährliche Lageberichte des abhängigen Unternehmens, das der Unternehmensgruppe angehört, werden einen zusätzlichen Teil mit Angaben zu den Beziehungen des anhängigen Unternehmens mit dem herrschenden Unternehmen im letzten Geschäftsjahr und zu den verbindlichen Weisungen des herrschenden Unternehmen an das abhängige Unternehmen enthalten müssen.
Nach der Gesetzesvorlage können die Minderheitsgesellschafter bzw. -aktionäre des abhängigen Unternehmens verlangen, dass ihnen Anteile oder Aktien zwangsweise abgekauft werden (Sell-out).
Voraussichtliches Inkrafttreten
Die Gesetzgebungsarbeiten befinden sich in einem frühen Stadium. Am 19. September 2020 wurde erst die öffentliche Anhörungsphase beendet. Momentan arbeitet der Verfasser an einem Bericht über die Anhörungsphase. Die besprochene Gesetzesvorlage wurde dem polnischen Parlament noch nicht vorgelegt.
Vorgesehen ist eine Legisvakanz von 3 Monaten, weil der Inhalt von Gesellschaftsverträgen bzw. Satzungen angepasst werden muss.
Für alle Fragen bezüglich der angesprochenen Punkte stehen Ihnen Rechtsanwälte aus unserem Beratungsteam für Gesellschaftsrecht und Corporate Governance zur Verfügung: Anna Wojciechowska (Rechtsanwältin, Partner) und Anna Fennig (Rechtsanwältin).
Rechtsgrundlage:
Gesetzesvorlage zur Änderung des Gesetzesbuches für Handelsgesellschaften und mancher anderen Gesetze, veröffentlicht am 5. August 2020 auf der Webseite des Regierungszentralstelle für die Gesetzgebung
The amendment to the Building law adopted by the Parliament by the act of 13 February 2020 was signed by the President of the Republic of Poland on 3 March 2020 and came into force on 19 September 2020 after a six-month vacatio legis period. The most important modifications introduced by the amendment are described below.
FACILITIES THAT REQUIRE NEITHER A BUILDING PERMIT NOR NOTIFICATION
The amendment clarifies and extends the list of facilities the erection of which requires neither a building permit nor a notification of construction.
The list of facilities that do not require a building permit, but merely a notification under Article 30 of the Building law, now includes (among other things): detached single family buildings in respect of which the impact zone is confined within the plot or plots for which they have been designed, all types of networks including district heating, water supply and sewer systems, as well as detached one-storey outbuildings, garages, shelters, porches and sunrooms if the development area of each such building object does not exceed 35 m2, pitches, courts and running tracks designated for recreation, fencing more than 2.2 m tall, jetties no more than 25 m in length and 2.5 m in height, and sewage treatment plants with a processing capacity of up to 7.5 m3 a day.
On the other hand, the list of facilities the erection of which does not require either a building permit or a notification now includes (among other things): allotment houses, bus stop and platform sheltersand backyard swimming pools and ponds if the area of each of these building objects does not exceed 50 m2, fencing up to 2.2 m tall, cash machines, ticket machines, cash deposit machines, vending machines, machines that store packages and machines designated for other services all up to 3 m tall, and above ground fuel tanks classified as facilities storing class III liquid fuels for the owner’s own needs with capacity up to 5 m3.
The new wording of the Building law now provides a list of construction works that do require a notification (e.g. redesign/conversion of external and structural elements of single family buildings provided that this does not lead to the extension of the building’s spatial impact beyond the confines of the plot where the building is located). Also, the amendment specifies a list of construction works that do not require either a building permit or a notification (e.g. redesign/conversion of a sewage treatment plant with a processing capacity of up to 7.5 m3 a day).
The amendment excludes the need to obtain a permit to demolish buildings and facilities located within enclosed areas specified in a decision of the Ministry of National Defence, provided that these buildings and facilities have not been classified as historic monuments and are not protected by law under heritage protection.
The above-mentioned lists of facilities and construction works are included in Article 29 sections 1-4 and Article 31 section 1 point 3 of the Building law.
CERTIFICATION OF UNAUTHORISED FACILITIES
The amendment introduces new chapter 5a implementing a procedure with respect to the commencement and carrying out construction works in violation of the provisions of the Building Law (so-called unauthorised construction).
The new chapter provides for, among other things, an easier legalization procedure for unauthorised construction cases within the framework of a so-called simplified legalization procedure. It will be possible to initiate such a procedure if at least 20 years have passed since the date of completion. As to unauthorised construction cases with the date of completion being before the entry into force of the Building Law Act of 7 July 1994, initiation of the simplified legalization procedure will be possible exclusively at the owner’s or facility manager’s request not ex officio by the construction supervisory authority as in other cases.
In the course of the simplified legalization procedure, the relevant body will examine not only the content of the legalization documents, but it will also assess the technical condition of the existing structure e.g. whether it is safe to use the facility without putting people’s health or lives in jeopardy. To this end, it will be necessary to provide an expert opinion on the condition of the facility in question. The procedure may result in issuing either a decision to legalize the facility or an order to demolish it if, in the course of the procedure, the applicant did not submit necessary documents or if an expert opinion rules that further use of the facility as specified in its design is not possible due to structural damage, or if it poses a threat to people’s health or lives.
MODIFIED FORM OF DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
The amendment changes the form of the planning permission attached to the application for a building permit. Now it must comprise three parts:
a plan for the development of a plot of land or an area (location, transportation system, and information on the impact zone of the facility);
building-architectural and construction design (spatial layout, and designed technical and material solutions); and
technical design (description of the structure, installation, and energy performance).
Pursuant to the new regulations, investors will be obliged to attach three copies of the plot or land development plan and the architectural and construction design to the application for a building permit. The investor will not submit the technical design. The obligation to submit the technical design in its latest form will arise only after the construction is complete, as an attachment to the application for a use permit or along with the notification of completion of the construction works.
This means that a technical design will not be assessed by a relevant administrative body prior to issuing a building permit, and it will be possible to modify it on an ongoing basis, with a reservation that the site manager will be obliged to present it on every request of the construction supervisory body. It is also worth noting that implementing new modifications to the technical design within the scope that has already been agreed with the relevant administrative body will require further approvals.
DEVIATION FROM THE WORDING OF AN APPROVED DESIGN
The new regulations change the approach towards considerable deviation from the building design. The legislator has allowed a considerable modification to the building design not only after the building permit has been granted, but also on the basis of a re-notification. Submitting a re-notification will be possible in respect of a modification resulting from a considerable deviation pursuant to the general rules of notification of construction or notification of construction works.
The act specifies that modifications to the building design will fall within the scope of a considerable deviation from the building design if: (i) the spatial impact of the facility is extended beyond the confines of the plot on which it is located, or (ii) the parameters regarding the following aspects are changed i.e. development area (change of over 5%), height, length or width (change of over 2%), or change of number of storeys, or (iii) there is a change of the heating source or change of preparation of domestic hot water for a source running on solid fuel.
Like before, the decision whether a modification is to be regarded as a considerable deviation from the building design or not is made by the designer. The designer will still be obliged to make appropriate modifications to the land development plan or to the building-architectural design.
EXCLUSIONS REGARDING RECOGNITION OF INVALIDITY OF PERMITS
After the lapse of 5 years from the date of granting a building permit or a use permit, it will not be possible to consider it null and void. In the course of procedures related to such cases, a relevant administrative body will only be able to recognize that the decision was issued in violation of the law but it will not be annulled.
MODIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF THE IMPACT ZONE OF A FACILITY
From now on, while determining the impact zone of a facility, special provisions will apply restrictions only regarding development, unlike before, where there were restrictions regarding a broader concept of land use around the facility, including development.
The modification will be of great importance primarily with respect to determination of the parties to an administrative procedure initiated to grant a building permit for a specific facility. The parties to an administrative procedure are the investor, owners, perpetual usufructuraries or facility managers located within the impact zone of the facility in question.
The method of determining the impact zone of a facility may be important for the preparation of a building design itself. The designer, while working on the design, is obliged to take into consideration the interests of third parties in the impact zone of the facility. Information on the facility’s impact zone will be included in the building design.
FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT VS CHANGE TO THE FACILITY OPERATIONS
Investors will be obliged to submit a relevant fire risk assessment issued by a fire protection expert if the facility operations change entirely or partially by way of taking up or foregoing operations that change fire protection conditions.
TRANSFER OF A BUILDING PERMIT
From the date of entry into force of the provisions of the amending act, transferring a decision in respect of a building permit is possible if the investor to whom the decision is transferred submits a declaration of taking over its conditions and such person’s right to use the property for construction purposes. The transferee is also obliged to present a consent to transfer the decision issued by its former addressee.
The above-mentioned consent of the decision’s former addressee to transfer the building permit is not required if the ownership or perpetual usufruct right with respect to a facility has been transferred from the former addressee of the building permit to the new investor. Time will tell whether the above modification will positively contribute to increasing asset deals instead of share deals in property transactions related to real estate investments.
PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF A FACILITY
The amendment will also change certain rules for imposing penalties for unlawful use of a facility. If a relevant administrative body recognizes unlawful use of a facility, it will be first of all obliged to instruct the investor or owner that it is necessary to obtain a decision on a use permit or to effectively notify of completion of construction works.
If, despite the instructions, after the lapse of 60 days the facility is still used unlawfully, the relevant body will impose on the investor or owner a penalty calculated analogously to the legalization fee (on the basis of Article 59f of the Building law), but it should be noted that the fee rate will be PLN 5,000 i.e. ten times higher than the rate specified in Article 59f. The new regulations enable the administrative body to impose multiple penalties in the event that the infringement is not ceased, but a subsequent penalty cannot be imposed before the lapse of 30 days from the delivery of the previous order regarding the case.
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Specific rules for application of the changes are mainly governed by the transitional provisions of Articles 25-39 of the amendment act. With regard to the provisions of the Building Law, the legislator adopted, pursuant to Article 25 of the amending act, the principle that the provisions of the Building Law as previously worded shall apply to cases initiated and not completed before the new regulations enter into force.
Moreover, analysis of the provisions of the amendment and the wording of the explanatory memorandum to the government draft act shows that the legislator’s intention was to construct the provisions in such a way as to ensure a transitional period for cases in which design works are already in progress. Therefore, pursuant to Article 26 of the amendment, it will be possible to attach a building design developed on the basis of the rules prior to the amendment to the application for a building permit, application for approval of a building design or notification of construction if the procedure is initiated within 12 months from the date on which the provisions of the amendment entered into force (i.e. 19 September 2020).
In addition, the wording of Article 27 of the amendment indicates that, in the case of implementation of construction plans on the basis of a final decision on a building permit or an effective notification issued before the amendment comes into force, the previous provisions shall apply. Similar to all construction plans carried out on the basis of a building design prepared on the basis of the previous regulations in the cases referred to in Article 25 and Article 26 of the amendment, the previous provisions shall apply.
The above means that, in practice, the entry into force of some new provisions of the Building Law may be significantly delayed, in particular, if investors decide to take advantage of the 12-month transition period.
If you have any queries regarding the issues described above, please contact Anna Wyrzykowska – partner, head of WKB’s Real Estate & Property Development practice.
On 5 August 2020, the Government Legislation Centre published the long awaited draft bill amending the Commercial Companies Code (the “CCC”) and certain other acts.
The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to introduce certain regulations from holdings law (the law on corporate groups) into the Polish law system, which will regulate relationships between parent companies and their subsidiaries such that the interests of all parties concerned are taken into account.
Furthermore, the draft bill, as published, provides for a number of amendments strengthening supervisory boards by giving them tools allowing them to exercise more effective corporate supervision. The bill also sanctions a duty of loyalty of members of a company’s governing bodies.
REGULATION OF HOLDING LAW
Corporate groups
Introducing a definition of corporate groups, which comprises a parent company and its subsidiary or subsidiaries, pursuing – in accordance with the articles of association or statute of each subsidiary – a common business strategy (corporate group interests), allowing the parent company to manage its subsidiaries in a uniform manner.
The definition above introduces the concept of a de facto holding company, based on the dominant and subsidiary relationship of companies within the group, to the Polish legal system.
The bill repeals Article 7 CCC, which regulated management agreements in respect of subsidiaries – a contractual holding. Consequently, once the amendments are implemented, holding law will be based entirely on the de facto holding company structure.
Both subsidiaries and parent companies will be under a duty to disclose their participation in corporate groups in the National Court Register.
The letters and online information of a company being part of a corporate group will have to identify their corporate group.
The bill foresees the possibility of corporate groups where the parent company is an entity other than a commercial company or partnership, as the provisions on corporate groups will apply, as appropriate, to cooperatives, foundations or associations undertaking business activities, investment funds and entrepreneurs being natural persons, required to register with the register of entrepreneurs or the Central Registration and Information on Business.
Corporate group interests
Both the parent company and its subsidiaries being members of the corporate group will be required to pursue the corporate group’s interests in addition to their own.
However, when pursuing the corporate group’s interests, they cannot act in a manner violating the interests of a subsidiary’s creditors, partners or shareholders.
Implementing a corporate group’s joint strategy
The parent company will be allowed to issue binding instructions (in written, documentary, or electronic form) to its subsidiaries being members of the corporate group in respect of the management of the company’s affairs, if justified by a specific corporate group interest.
The body managing the company’s affairs must adopt the appropriate resolution prior to performing a parent company’s instructions. Such resolutions may be passed if the performance of the parent company’s instructions does not violate the subsidiary’s interests, or if it could be reasonably assumed that any damage suffered by the subsidiary as a result of its performance of the parent company’s instructions will be remedied by the parent company, or another company within the corporate group, in due time (however, no more than 2 years after the damage occurs).
Wholly-owned subsidiaries being members of corporate groups will not be able to refuse to perform their parent company’s instructions.
Subsidiaries, being members of corporate groups, in which the parent company holds, directly or indirectly, at least 75% of the share capital will be able to refuse to perform instructions only when their performance would result in it becoming insolvent, or being subject to a threat of insolvency.
The draft bill provides for a protection mechanism for the parent company, allowing it to effectively manage the corporate group by undertaking a compulsory by-out of the shares (stock) held in its subsidiaries by their minority partners or shareholders (a, so-called, squeeze-out), which will be the first time in Polish legal history that this institution is applied to the law on limited liability companies.
Parent companies will be entitled to review the books and documents of their subsidiaries at any time and request information from a subsidiary being a member of the corporate group.
A parent company’s supervisory board (or, in its absence, the body managing its affairs) will, as a rule, exercise ongoing supervision over the pursuit of the corporate group’s interests by the subsidiaries, being members of the corporate group.
Liability of members of group companies’ governing bodies
Members of the governing body of a subsidiary being a member of a corporate group may rely on the fact that their actions or omissions were undertaken with regard to a specific corporate group interest, provided that the company has disclosed its membership in the group in the National Court register.
As a rule, members of a subsidiary’s governing bodies will not be held liable under civil or criminal law for the performance of a parent company’s instructions.
Parent company liability for instructions given
A parent company will be liable for the consequences of binding instructions given to its subsidiaries, when performed by subsidiaries being members of the corporate group. They will be liable for compensatory damages on the basis of fault.
A parent company’s liability will depend on the nature of its dominant relationship towards the relevant subsidiary: (i) in wholly-owned subsidiaries, or subsidiaries in which the parent company holds at least 75% of the share capital, the parent company’s liability arises if the instruction’s performance led to the subsidiary’s insolvency; (ii) in all remaining subsidiaries, the parent company will be liable if the instruction’s performance by a given subsidiary violated the corporate group’s interests.
The draft bill also introduces the, so-called, Business Judgment Rule (i.e. acting within the limits of reasonable business risks), whereby a parent company will not be liable for a subsidiary’s performance of its instructions if it/ acted within the limits of reasonable business risks, including on the basis of information, analyses and opinions.
Parent companies will also be held liable towards their subsidiaries’ creditors and minority partners or shareholders for the consequences of their subsidiaries’ performance of their instructions, to a certain degree.
Protection of the minority partners (shareholders) of subsidiaries in corporate groups
Subsidiaries will be required to make annual reports on their ties to their parent companies for the previous financial year, with said reports specifying the binding instructions received from the parent company.
The draft bill would allow a subsidiary’s minority partners or shareholders to demand the compulsory purchase of the shares or stock they hold, also referred to as a ‘sell-out’ right.
STRENGTHENING SUPERVISORY BOARDS
Supervisory boards granted additional competences
In order to perform their duties, supervisory boards will be entitled to demand any and all information, documents, statements and/or explanations they need in order to supervise the company, in particular those pertaining to the company’s activities or assets, from its management board, commercial proxies, and all persons employed by the company (including persons employed under civil law agreements), also with respect to subsidiaries.
Supervisory boards will be authorized to adopt resolutions requiring that specific issues concerning the company’s activities or assets be audited (at the company’s expense) by an advisor of their choice, provided that the chosen advisor possesses the necessary professional expertise and qualifications to assess a given matter.
A duty to obtain the consent of a joint-stock company’s supervisory board will be introduced in respect of transactions concluded by such companies with a parent company, subsidiary, or related entity, if the transaction’s value exceeds 10% of the company’s total assets, calculated on the basis of the company’s most recent approved financial statements.
Supervisory boards will now be able to establish ad hoc or permanent committees to perform certain supervisory functions (supervisory board committees).
Additional duties of management boards
Management boards will be required to provide supervisory boards with additional information on a range of matters listed in the draft bill, including, for example, material transactions, resolutions adopted by the management board, or changes in the company’s situation, without being called to do so.
The draft bill provides for the imposition of criminal penalties, in the form of fines, on members of the management board personally if they fail to provide the required documents or information to the supervisory board, while also expanding the catalogue of persons prohibited from acting as a member of a company’s management board to include persons convicted of the above offence.
Supervisory board report
As before the duties of supervisory boards will include the preparation and submission of an annual written report on their activities over the previous financial year (the supervisory board’s report) to the partner’s (or shareholders’) meeting or general meeting.
In addition to an assessment of the company’s situation, the supervisory board’s report shall also include an evaluation of the company’s control and risk management procedures and an evaluation of the management board’s communication of documents and information to the supervisory board.
OTHER CHANGES
The terms of office for members of companies’ governing bodies will be based on full financial years (unless the company’s articles of association or statute provide otherwise), which will resolve the current practical doubts concerning the period of time for which persons act as members of governing bodies raised by the use of the terms “term of office” and “mandate”.
Sanctioning a duty of loyalty of members of companies’ governing bodies, whereby their performance of their duties will be assessed on the criteria of diligence – they will, therefore, need to maintain the level of due diligence expected on account of the professional nature of their position on a governing body.
The duty to keep the company’s business secrets confidential will continue beyond the end of a member’s mandate on a company’s governing body.
Engaging the services of a professional advisor while conducting qualification proceedings in respect of members of a company’s management board will now be permitted.
The Business Judgment Rule is intended to be determinative as to whether members of a company’s governing bodies are liable for damage caused to the company, which will allow for the definitive exclusion of liability for damage caused to the company on account of its governing bodies’ faulty decisions, provided that such decisions were made within the limits of reasonable business risks and were based on adequate information under the circumstances.
The draft bill imposes a duty upon the members of companies’ governing bodies, as well as its liquidators and commercial proxies, to submit declarations certifying that they fulfil the conditions set out in the Commercial Companies Code for their respective functions.
PLANNED COMMENCEMENT
The draft bill is currently the subject of consultations which will last until 19 September 2020.
The draft bill provides for a 3-month vacatio legis, as it is necessary for companies to amend their articles of association (statutes).
Im Rahmen des sog. „Anti-Krisen-Schutzschildes 4.0” sind am 24. Juli 2020 neue Regelungen über die Kontrolle direkter ausländischer Investitionen in Kraft getreten. Mit den neuen Rechtsvorschriften wird die staatliche Kontrolle über M&A Transaktionen in manchen strategischen Wirtschaftssektoren erweitert.
Es kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass die neuen Rechtsvorschriften auch auf laufende (bis zum 24. Juli 2020 nicht beendete) Transaktionen zur Anwendung kommen. Am 21. Juli 2020 veröffentlichte der Präsident des Amtes für Wettbewerbs- und Verbraucherschutz (UOKiK) Richtlinien zu den neuen Rechtsvorschriften. Obwohl die Richtlinien keine verbindliche Rechtsquelle darstellen, zeigen sie doch, wie die neuen Regeln interpretiert und umgesetzt werden.
Auswirkungen auf M&A Transaktionen
Mit den neuen Regelungen soll die polnische Industrie vor “feindlichen Übernahmen” seitens Investoren von außerhalb (1) der Europäischen Union, (2) des Europäischen Wirtschaftsraums (EWR) oder (3) der Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD) geschützt werden. Die Freistellung der OECD-Investoren wurde in der Schlussphase der Gesetzgebungsarbeit hinzugefügt und mildert die Auswirkungen der neuen Regeln erheblich, da nicht nur Investoren aus der EU, sondern auch die aus den USA, Kanada, Australien, Israel sowie Japan und Südkorea davon profitieren können.
Das neue Gesetz wirkt sich erheblich auf M&A Transaktionen aus, und zwar aus folgenden Gründen:
Es gilt für Unternehmer, die in zahlreichen Wirtschaftssektoren tätig sind.
Es wurde eine niedrige Wesentlichkeitsschwelle festgesetzt (Transaktionen, die Unternehmer mit einem in Polen erzielten Jahresumsatz von mehr als 10.000.000 EUR betreffen, sind anzeigepflichtig).
Die zuständige Behörde, also UOKiK, wird mit weitreichenden Kompetenzen ausgestattet (eine Zustimmung kann auch dann verweigert werden, wenn zumindest potenzielle Gefahr für die öffentliche Ordnung oder die öffentliche Sicherheit der Republik Polen oder die öffentliche Gesundheit in der Republik Polen vorliegt).
Bei Verstößen sieht das Gesetz rigide Geldstrafen sowie Gefängnisstrafen für natürliche Personen vor.
Geschützte Wirtschaftssektoren
Als sog. geschützte Rechtsträger sind relativ viele Unternehmen aufgelistet. Hier zählen u.a.:
börsennotierte Gesellschaften,
Unternehmen, die im Besitz von Vermögensgegenständen sind, die als “kritische Infrastrukturen” gelten, sowie
Unternehmen, die in ausgewählten Wirtschaftssektoren tätig sind: IT (Hersteller von Software für bestimmte Sektoren), Stromerzeuger und -verteiler (sowohl konventionelle als auch erneuerbare Energien), Unternehmen, die Treibstoffe transportieren und lagern, Telekommunikationsunternehmen sowie medizinische Industrie und Pharmaindustrie (Herstellung von medizinischen Geräten, Instrumenten und Apparaten sowie von Arzneimitteln und anderen pharmazeutischen Produkten usw.), Erzeugung, Übertragung und Verteilung von Wärme sowie Verarbeitung von Fleisch, Milch, Getreide, Obst und Gemüse.
Kontrollpflichtige Geschäfte
Kontrollpflichtig sind ausschließlich Geschäfte, die durch Unternehmen von außerhalb der EU, des EWR und der OECD abgewickelt werden (dies gilt auch dann, wenn die Muttergesellschaft der Kapitalgruppe des Erwerbers außerhalb der EU, des EWR und der OECD ist).
Das Gesetz betrifft Maßnahmen, die zum Erwerb oder zur Erlangung eines Beherrschungsverhältnisses oder einer “bedeutenden Beteiligung” (d.h. Halten, Erreichen oder Überschreiten der Beteiligungsschwelle von 20% oder 40% der Anteile) führen können. Die Bestimmungen gelten nicht nur für den direkten Erwerb von Anteilen, sondern auch für Transaktionen des indirekten Erwerbs über eine Tochtergesellschaft, Transaktionen mit Vermögenswerten und alle Arten indirekter Möglichkeiten der Kontrollübernahme oder der Einflussnahme auf ein anderes Unternehmen (z.B. Fusionen, Spaltungen, Satzungsänderungen, Einziehung von Anteilen sowie alle anderen Transaktionen oder Aktivitäten, die zum indirekten Erwerb oder zur Erlangung einer bedeutenden Beteiligung oder eines Beherrschungsverhältnisses führen, auch auf der Grundlage von ausländischen Transaktionen, die ausländischem Recht unterliegen).
Das neue Gesetz gilt nur für den Fall, dass der übernommene Unternehmer in mindestens einem der letzten beiden Geschäftsjahre einen Umsatz von mehr als 10 Millionen Euro in der Republik Polen erzielt hat.
Kompetenzen des UOKiK-Präsidenten
Ausländische Investitionen sollen durch UOKiK kontrolliert werden.
Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass diese Behörde auch die Konzentrationskontrolle nach den Bestimmungen des Gesetzes über den Wettbewerbs- und Verbraucherschutz ausübt.
Wir sind also mit einer Situation konfrontiert, in der bei bestimmten Transaktionen praktisch zwei Genehmigungen von derselben Staatsbehörde erforderlich sind, die auf unterschiedlichen Rechtsgrundlagen erteilt werden.
Kriterien für die Bewertung angezeigter Transaktionen
UOKiK kann einer Transaktion widersprechen, wenn „zumindest potenzielle Gefahr für die öffentliche Ordnung oder die öffentliche Sicherheit der Republik Polen oder die öffentliche Gesundheit in der Republik Polen“ vorliegt.
Die Zustimmung kann ferner verweigert werden, wenn der Antragsteller nicht alle erforderlichen Informationen übermittelt hat und wenn nicht feststellbar ist, ob das in der EU ansässige Unternehmen, das die Kontrolle oder die maßgebliche Beteiligung übernimmt, diese Ansässigkeitsvoraussetzung zumindest in den letzten zwei Jahren erfüllt hat.
Die Bewertung wird daher auf sehr allgemeinen Überlegungen beruhen. Dadurch werden UOKiK weitgehende Zuständigkeiten eingeräumt.
Meldetermin
Eine Transaktion ist grundsätzlich vor deren Abwicklung anzuzeigen.
Bedauerlicherweise ist das Gesetz auch in diesem Punkt unpräzise, weil es an einer anderen Stelle vorschreibt, dass die Anzeige vor dem Abschluss „eines jeden Vertrages, der eine Erwerbsverpflichtung begründet”, und im Falle börsennotierter Gesellschaften vor dem öffentlichen Erwerbsangebot zu erfolgen hat (was darauf hinweisen kann, dass das öffentliche Erwerbsangebot vorbehaltlich einer Zustimmung nicht zulässig ist – dies kann gewisse Probleme in der Praxis bereiten, z.B. Informationsleck zum geplanten öffentlichen Erwerbsangebot noch vor der Veröffentlichung). In den Richtlinien wird diese Frage nicht im Detail erörtert oder eine Lösung angegeben.
Eine Transaktion sollte nicht beendet werden, bevor die einschlägige Zustimmung vorliegt bzw. die gesetzliche Frist für die Erteilung eines Zustimmungsbescheids abgelaufen ist.
Verfahrensdauer
Die Freigabe einer Transaktion, die keine Zweifel erweckt, oder die Bestätigung, dass eine Transaktion nicht kontrollpflichtig ist, erfolgt binnen 30 Werktagen.
In Fällen, in denen ein Kontrollverfahren wegen der öffentlichen Sicherheit oder der öffentlichen Ordnung einzuleiten ist, werden binnen 120 Kalendertagen beendet (die Wartezeit für die Beantwortung zusätzlicher Fragen des UOKIK wird nicht mitgerechnet).
Sanktionen bei Verletzung der Anzeigepflicht
Jede Transaktion, die ohne vorgeschriebene Anzeige erfolgt, ist nichtig. Lt. Gesetz sind ferner für Verstöße gegen die neuen Regelungen sehr rigide Strafen vorgesehen, und zwar sowohl finanzielle (Geldstrafen bis 50.000.000 PLN) als auch strafrechtliche Sanktionen (bis 5 Jahre Freiheitsstrafe) (die Strafen können sowohl dem Unternehmen, das Beteiligungen ohne Anzeige erwirbt, als auch natürlichen Personen, die in seinem Namen handeln, auferlegt werden).
Für alle Fragen bezüglich der angesprochenen Punkte stehen Ihnen Rechtsanwälte aus unserem German Desk und unserem Beratungsteam für Wettbewerb und M&A zur Verfügung: Anna Wojciechowska (Rechtsanwältin, Partner), Aleksander Stawicki (Rechtsanwalt, Partner), Jakub Jędrzejak (Rechtsanwalt, Partner) und Anna Fennig (Rechtsanwältin).
In case of any further questions please contact Aleksander Stawicki, head of the Competition Law Practice, and Jakub Jędrzejak, co-head of the M&A Team.
Our experts continue to monitor and analyse all new legislative proposals in Poland which can affect business during the pandemic.
In connection with the adoption of amendments to the Anti-Crisis Shield framework 4.0 (24 June 2020), we present materials, including a set of analyses on the law as of 1 July 2020.
The changes introduced by the Shield 4.0 concern in particular:
operation of commercial companies,
labour law,
taxes,
restructuring,
foreign investments,
commercial and consumer loans,
real estate,
new powers granted to the President of the OCCP (UOKiK), and
functioning of cooperatives, associations and foundations.
We invite you to read on.
___
Operation of commercial companies
New rules for remote participation and the adoption of resolutions at shareholders’ meetings and meetings of other company bodies;
Extension of the deadline to draft and approve financial statements for entities required to prepare them;
Extension of the deadline for the first registration of beneficial owners in the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (CRBR) for companies registered before 13.10.2019;
Extension of the deadlines for fulfilling obligations related to shareholders’ register and obligatory dematerialisation of shares in non – public joint-stock companies and limited joint-stock partnerships;
New regulations concerning adoption of resolutions by supervisory boards on matters for which the articles of association or statute of the company provide for secret ballot;
Change in the method of subscription for shares in joint-stock companies;
Modification of liability of members of the company’s organs;
Modification of terms related to the dematerialization of shares for companies in bankruptcy.
The deadline to submit transfer pricing information (or draw up local documentation) and a statement on the drawing up of local transfer pricing documentation are extended until 31 December 2020;
Contractual penalties and damages paid on account of defects in goods supplied (or work and services performed) and delays in the delivery of goods free of such defects (or delays in the removal of defects in goods supplied or work and services performed) may be included in tax costs, if such defects or delays occurred in connection with COVID-19;
Subsidies to interest on bank loans will not be considered as tax revenue for entrepreneurs.
Shield 4.0 grants debtors the ability to make use of simplified restructuring procedures until 30 June 2021;
Simplified restructuring proceedings are opened by publishing a notice in the Court and Commercial Gazette (Monitor Sądowy i Gospodarczy) once an agreement is concluded with a restructuring advisor, who will act to supervise the arrangement, and the debtor draws-up the list of claims, the list of disputed claims and prepares arrangement proposals;
The arrangement must be approved within 4 months of the publication of a notice in the Court and Commercial Gazette;
Debtors have been granted broad protections by, among others, the suspension of enforcement proceedings, and a prohibition on terminating key agreements (such as tenancies, loans and leases, among others).
Ability to change the terms and conditions or repayment date of credit (loans) granted before 8 March;
Banks may extend or modify financing already granted notwithstanding the loss of creditworthiness (e.g. Article 70 of the Banking Law) while retaining the ability to terminate credit (loan) agreements;
The KNF has recommended that financing not be renewed on terms as of 31.12.2019 for a period of more than 1 year;
KNF has allowed banks to take simplified positive liquidity forecasts into account if they increase the amount of financing to existing customers above the level available on 31.12.2019.
Possibility to grant interest rate subsidies on credits to entrepreneur in a difficult financial situation as a result of COVID-19, in order to ensure financial liquidity;
The subsidies shall represent all or part of the interest due to the bank up to a maximum of 2 percentage points (depending on the size of the enterprise);
Subsidies shall apply to credit agreements concluded from 24.06.2020 as well as previously concluded and adjusted to statutory conditions;
Subsidies are paid for a period up to 12 months from the date of conclusion of the credit agreement with subsidy;
Credits with a subsidy are granted until the end of 2020.
Consumer loans
The maximum value set for non-interest costs for consumer loans limited to 365 days applies only to new agreements concluded during the period covered by the Anti-Crisis Shield;
For loans with a repayment term of less than 30 days – non-interest costs are capped at up to 5% of the total loan amount (calculation formula in the Shield), with a cap of up to 45% of the total loan amount for longer loans;
Impact of the Shield’s provisions on new loans from the same entity, granted within 120 days of the previous disbursement;
Infringements of the Shield may be treated as practices violating consumers’ collective interests.
Possibility to suspend for up to 3 months the repayment of the loan (the principal as well as interest), without charging interest or other charges (excluding insurance fees) (Credit Holidays).
“Statutory” credit holidays
Shield 4.0 introduces, so-called, credit holidays, meaning the ability to suspend loan repayments for up to three months, without accruing interest or other fees, for persons who lost their employment or other main source of income after 13 March 2020.
The Polish Competition Authority – the President of UOKiK (Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów) has found that the banking sector’s current practices regarding assisting clients in repaying loans, in light of the gradual economic lockdown, may threaten the borrowers’ rights as consumers. Thanks to the President’s proposal, credit holidays have been included in Shield 4.0 and have thus become “statutory” in nature.
Shield 4.0 provides for the ability to suspend the repayment of credit for up to 3 months, without accruing interest or other fees (other than premiums for insurance related to these agreements). The solution included in the Act will affect loan agreements concluded 13 March 2020, if the loan’s repayment term, as specified in such agreements, falls at least 6 months after 13 March 2020.
Credit holidays result in the obligation to repay consumer loans, mortgage loans, and credits as understood by Art. 69 of the Act of 29 August 1997 – the Banking Law (where the borrower is a consumer), with regards to both the principal and interest, being suspended.
The loan term, as well as all other terms provided for in the loan agreement, shall be extended accordingly by the length of the suspension. If a borrower has multiple loans of the same type with a given lender, they will only be entitled to enjoy a credit holiday for one of them.
New powers granted to the President of the OCCP – access to information on taxpayers
The Anti-Crisis Shield 4.0 extends the powers of the President of the OCCP regarding their access
to data held by tax offices and customs and tax offices.
The President of the OCCP has been given access to information on, among others, bank, savings and cash accounts, securities accounts, credit and loan agreements, deposit agreements as well as Treasury shares and bonds.
The information received will be used not only in competition and consumer protection proceedings, but also in proceedings regarding payment gridlocks, contractual advantage, and the control
of certain investments.
The Act significantly expands State control over M&A transactions undertaken by entities from outside of the European Union, European Economic Area and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in certain strategic sectors of the economy;
Foreign investment controls will be performed by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, who has been granted broad competences. Transactions are subject to prior notification, and any acquisition made without the required notification shall be invalid;
The Act provides for strict financial and criminal penalties for failing to comply with the new regulations;
These provisions will come into force on 24 July 2020, and will also apply to ongoing transactions which have not completed by that date.
The deadline for the payment of annual fees for the perpetual usufruct of property for 2020 is deferred until 31 January 2021;
Possibility to reduce annual fees for the perpetual usufruct of property used for business purposes by entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations, public benefit organizations and state legal persons which reported a decline in revenue as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak;
Owners and holder of perpetual usufruct of property exempt from stamp duty for the issue of decisions on land use and development conditions concerning their property;
the stamp duty for the issue of decisions on land use and development conditions has gone up, from PLN 107, to PLN 598;
Shield 4.0 introduces a definition of the term “commercial space” used in Art. 15ze of the Shield Act, which concerns the possibility of lowering rent for space in large commercial facilities.
Functioning of cooperatives, associations, foundations and other entities
New regulations concerning participation in meetings and adoption of resolutions by governing bodies of cooperatives, associations and foundations by using electronic means of communication during the pandemic;
Adoption of resolutions by collegial bodies of professional self-governments by using electronic means of communication during the pandemic;
New regulations concerning remote participation in meetings of members or delegates of polish sports associations and the possibility of supplementing the composition of general meetings of the members (delegates) during the pandemic;
Extension of the deadline for cooperatives, associations, foundations and other legal persons obliged to prepare and approve financial statements for 2019, as well as to publish these documents by public benefit organizations on the relevant page of the National Institute;
Planned extension of the obligation to register information with the Central Register of Beneficial Owners to foundations, associations registered in the KRS and cooperatives – in legislative process;
Extension of the term of office of foundation bodies and association authorities during the pandemic.
Poland adopted a new law on foreign direct investment controls as part of the so-called “Anti-Crisis Shield 4.0”. The law expands the State’s control over M&A transactions in some strategic sectors of the economy. Below you can read about the most important consequencesof the new regulation.
In case of any further questions please contact Aleksander Stawicki, head of the Competition Law Practice, and Jakub Jędrzejak, co-head of the M&A Team.
Am 1. Januar 2020 sind Gesetzesänderungen zur Einführung von Aktionärregister für nicht börsennotierte Aktiengesellschaften und Kommanditgesellschaften auf Aktien teilweise in Kraft getreten. Das Aktionärregister ist ein der polnischen Rechtsordnung bisher unbekanntes Rechtsinstitut, mit dem Aktien der vorgenannten Gesellschaften verpflichtend entmaterialisiert werden. Das Ziel ist, den Handel mit Aktien nicht börsennotierter Gesellschaften sicherer zu machen und die Identifizierung aller Aktionäre zu ermöglichen. Durch die Ausbreitung von SARS-CoV-2-Virus wurde jedoch die Funktionsfähigkeit der Gesellschaftsorgane einschließlich der Erfüllung ihrer Pflichten im Zusammenhang mit der Einführung des Aktionärregisters erheblich beeinträchtigt. Um Unternehmern die Erfüllung dieser Pflicht zu erleichtern, wurden die gesetzlichen Fristen für die Einführung des Aktionärregisters verlängert, und zwar aufgrund des Gesetzes vom 14. Mai 2000 (Dz. U. vom 15. Mai 2020 Pos. 875) über die Änderung mancher Gesetze wegen Ausbreitung von SARS-CoV-2-Virus („Schutzschild 3.0“), das am 16. Mai 2020 in Kraft getreten ist. Was sollten Sie wissen?
Das Aktionärregister wird die bisher von den Gesellschaften geführten Aktienbücher ersetzen.
Das Aktionärregister wird von einem externen Fachunternehmen nur elektronisch und einzeln für die jeweilige Gesellschaft geführt.
Entmaterialisierung der Aktien nach dem Gesetz über den Handel mit Finanzinstrumenten als Alternative für das Aktionärregister.
Als Alternative für das Aktionärregister gilt die Entmaterialisierung der Aktien nach dem Gesetz über den Handel mit Finanzinstrumenten. Die Aktien einer und derselben Gesellschaft dürfen jedoch nicht gleichzeitig im Aktionärregister und im Wertpapierdepot geführt werden. Zugleich sind alle Aktien börsennotierter Gesellschaften nach dem Gesetz über den Handel mit Finanzinstrumenten verpflichtend zu entmaterialisieren.
Das Aktionärregister wird für Namens- und Inhaberaktien sowie für Optionsscheine, Gewinnanteilsscheine, Gründungsscheine und sonstige Wertpapiere geführt, die einen Anteil an Erträgen oder an dem aufzuteilenden Vermögen einer Gesellschaft verbriefen. Durch Einführung des Aktionärregisters wird der Handel mit Aktien nicht börsennotierter Gesellschaften revolutioniert.
Der Aktienerwerb bzw. die Bestellung eines beschränkten dinglichen Rechts daran wird grundsätzlich erst mit der Eintragung ins Aktionärregister erfolgen.
Das Verfahren zur Einführung des Aktionärregisters ist formalisiert:
Pflicht zur fünffachen Aufforderung der Aktionäre zur Vorlage der Aktienurkunden,
die erste Aufforderung muss bis zum 30. September 2020 erfolgen,
Pflicht zum Abschluss eines Vertrages über die Führung des Aktionärregisters.
Das Verfahren zur Einführung des Aktionärregisters ist äußerst formalisiert und sollte zeitlich gut geplant werden. Der Gesetzgeber hat vorgeschrieben, dass Aktionäre fünfmal zur Vorlage der Aktienurkunden aufzufordern sind. Dabei sind Informationen über die Aufforderung auf der Webseite der Gesellschaft zu veröffentlichen. Die Aufforderungen haben auf die bei der Einberufung einer Hauptversammlung geltende Art und Weise in zeitlichen Abständen von max. einem Monat und min. zwei Wochen zu erfolgen.
Nach den Regelungen des Schutzschildes 3.0 wurde der Termin für die erste Aufforderung um drei Monate aufgeschoben. Nun hat die Aufforderung bis zum 30. September 2020 zu erfolgen. Vorher hat die Hauptversammlung einen entsprechenden Rechtsträger (Brokerhaus oder befugte Bank) zu wählen und einen Vertrag über die Führung des Aktionärregisters zu schließen.
Obligatorischer Besitz eigener Webseiten.
Am frühesten, d.h. am 1. Januar 2020 ist die Regelung in Kraft getreten, nach der Gesellschaften ihre eigenen Webseiten für die Veröffentlichung aller gesetzlich oder satzungsmäßig vorgeschriebenen Bekanntmachungen besitzen müssen. Die Gesellschaften haben die Adresse ihrer Webseite im Unternehmerregister des Nationalen Gerichtsregisters offen zu legen.
Geldstrafen für unterlassene oder nicht ordnungsgemäße Aufforderungen.
Sollten Aktionäre zur Vorlage der Aktienurkunden nicht bzw. nicht ordnungsgemäß aufgefordert werden oder sollte kein Vertrag über die Führung des Aktionärregisters innerhalb der vorgeschrieben Fristen geschlossen werden, können Personen, die zur Führung der Geschäfte und zur Vertretung der Gesellschaft berechtigt sind, Geldstrafen auferlegt werden.
Änderungen bei der Ausschüttung von Dividenden und bei der Einberufung von Hauptversammlungen.
Mit der Novelle zur Einführung des Aktionärregisters wurden auch die Regelungen über die Ausschüttung von Dividenden geändert und die Grundsätze für die Einberufung von Hauptversammlungen vereinheitlicht. Dividenden sollen nun über den das Aktionärregister führenden Rechtsträger ausgeschüttet werden, es sei denn, die Satzung enthält abweichende Regelungen. Hauptversammlungen sind unabhängig von der Art der ausgegebenen Aktien per Einschreiben oder Kurierdienst, ggf. per E-Mail einzuberufen.
Einführung des Aktionärregisters bis Ende Februar 2021.
Mit den Regelungen des Schutzschildes 3.0 wurde der bisherige Termin, zu dem alle ausgegebenen Aktienurkunden außer Kraft treten, vom 1. Januar 2021 auf den 1. März 2021 aufgeschoben. Bisherige Aktienbücher werden auch an diesem Tag durch Aktionärregister ersetzt. Vom 1. Januar 2026 auf den 1. März 2026 wurde auch der Tag aufgeschoben, bis zu dem Aktienurkunden Beweiskraft haben. Dies gilt allerdings nur für Anteilsrechte der Aktionäre.
Für alle Fragen bezüglich der angesprochenen Punkte stehen Ihnen Rechtsanwälte aus unserem Beratungsteam für Gesellschaftsrecht und Corporate Governance zur Verfügung. Anna Wojciechowska Rechtsanwältin, Partner (anna.wojciechowska@wkb.pl) Anna Fennig Rechtsanwältin (anna.fennig@wkb.pl)
In case of any further questions please contact Aleksander Stawicki, head of the Competition Law Practice, and Jakub Jędrzejak, co-head of the M&A Team.
According to information published on the Government Legislation Centre’s website, the Ministry of Finance has prepared a draft bill of an Act to amend the Act of 1 March 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (the “Act”). The proposed amendments are primarily aimed at implementing the provisions of Directive 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) of 30 May 2018 (the so-called 5th AML Directive).
The scope of the proposed amendments to the Act includes, among others:
extension and clarification of the list of obliged entities – by the addition of entrepreneurs whose activity is connected with art works, collectors’ items and antiques, for transactions of at least €10,000. It is worth noting that auction houses and antique stores were already classified as obliged entities under the previous Act of 16 November 2000 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism. Additionally, entrepreneurs providing tax advice but not being tax advisors will also become obliged entities;
clarification of some definitions, including “beneficial owner” – According to the proposed amendments, “any natural person” who fulfils the criteria indicated in Art. 2 s. 2 pt. 1 of the Act shall be considered a beneficial owner, meaning that all persons who may potentially fulfil any of the conditions specified in the Act should always be taken into account in the process of determining the beneficial owner;
specification of the rules concerning the application of financial security measures by obliged entities – within existing business relationships, obliged entities should also apply security measures when there has been a change in the customer’s or beneficial owner’s data. Additionally, when establishing new business relations, obliged entities should obtain confirmation of the potential customer’s registration in the appropriate register of beneficial owners, or an extract from such a register.
The obligation for obliged entities to establish the number and series of identity document each time is to be lifted, unless the obliged entity is already in possession of such information.
Furthermore, if a person holding a senior management position is identified as the beneficial owner, obliged entities are now required to document the actions taken in order to verify the identity of the beneficial owner, including, in particular, to document any difficulties encountered during the verification process.
Importantly, obliged entities, when applying financial security measures to their clients, will not be able to rely solely on the information contained in the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (CRBR), or an equivalent register maintained by another Member State. Thus, the content of such an entry will only be considered informative in nature, and so obliged entities should continue to be proactive identifying the beneficial owner.
partial definition of enhanced financial security measures – The current Act only contains a list of examples of circumstances which may indicate a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, which, if found, impose an obligation for a given entity to apply, so-called, enhanced financial security measures. Obliged entities are free to choose which measures they apply, as the Act does not even contain a catalogue of examples of enhanced security measures. According to the draft amendments, these measures have been partially defined by introducing a minimal catalogue of actions which obliged entities will be required to take;
increasing the threshold to waive financial security measures for electronic money – The Act, as it currently stands, allows for financial security measures to be waived for electronic money so long as the amount stored electronically does not exceed the equivalent of EUR 50. The draft foresees that this threshold would be increased to EUR 150, a change long requested by payment service providers;
clarification of the rules for keeping documents and information obtained as a result of obliged entities applying financial security measures – The General Inspector of Financial Information will only be permitted to request that an obliged entity continue to keep information it has already obtained if such continued storage is necessary to ensure the accuracy of proceedings regarding money laundering or terrorist financing, or criminal proceedings;
obligation for EU Member States to publish and update a list of public functions which qualify as being politically exposed (“PEP”) under national law – According to the 5th AML Directive, each member state should develop and publish lists of so-called “national PEPs.” In the case of Poland, the list of public functions which are politically exposed will be determined in the form of a regulation of the minister responsible for public finances;
changes in the functioning of and verification of data contained in the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (CRBR) – The draft amendments extend the catalogue of entities obliged to report information on beneficial owners by adding:
trusts, whose trustees, or persons holding equivalent positions, have their residence in the territory of the Republic of Poland;
trusts, whose trustees, or persons holding equivalent positions, establish business relations or purchase real estate in the territory of the Republic of Poland for or on behalf of the trust;
limited liability partnerships;
European Economic Interest Groupings (EEIG);
European companies (societates Europaeae);
cooperatives;
European Cooperative Societies (societas cooperativa Europaeae);
associations subject to registration in the National Court Register;
foundations.
Significantly, the draft amendments to the Act require obliged entities to record any discrepancies between the information on the customer as determined by the obliged entity and the data available in the CRBR. At the same time, obliged entities should take the appropriate steps to explain any discrepancies they have identified and, if confirmed, provide this information to the minister responsible for public finances with their justification. Determining the manner in which to record such discrepancies should also be taken into account in the obliged entity’s internal procedures.
Moreover, the amendments provide for the possibility of imposing financial penalties on beneficial owners who have failed to provide an obliged entity with the relevant information required to make an entry in the CRBR.
The expected date of the draft’s adoption by the Council of Ministers was set for the second quarter of 2020.
WKB’s lawyers have analysed the most important provisions of the Anti-Crisis Shield Act in Poland. The Anti-Crisis Shield is a special law which implements a range of various solutions aimed at combatting the epidemic crisis, amending or supplementing many other acts and regulations, which will affect many areas of companies’ business activities.
In connection with the adoption of amendments to the Anti-Crisis Shield framework (15 May 2020), we provide you with expanded and verified materials regarding various areas, including a set of analyses on the law as of 21 May 2020.
Therefore, we provide a collection of materials consisting of short summaries of the most important changes in a number of fields, followed by expert studies. We also draw your attention to certain aspects which were not included in the Shield’s provisions, often against the recommendations of entrepreneurs, and which at the same time may create risks for business activities.
OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL COMPANIES
New rules for remote participation and the adoption of resolutions at shareholders’ meetings and meetings of other company bodies;
Extension of the deadline to draft and approve financial statements for entities required to prepare them;
Extension of the deadline for the first registration of beneficial owners in the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (CRBR) for companies registered before 13.10.2019;
Extension of the deadlines for fulfilling obligations related to shareholders’ register and obligatory dematerialisation of shares in non – public joint-stock companies and limited joint-stock partnerships [Shield 3.0 – new];
New regulations concerning adoption of resolutions by supervisory boards on matters for which the articles of association or statute of the company provide for secret ballot;
Change in the method of subscription for shares in joint-stock companies;
Modification of liability of members of the company’s organs.
Reduced working hours and lower remuneration for furloughed employees;
Subsidies are available to micro, small and medium-sized entrepreneurs from district governors;
Deferred payment of social security contributions (ZUS) / payment of contributions in instalments through prolongation fee exemptions;
Partial exemption from social security contributions for entrepreneurs employing up to 49 people and exemption for sole entrepreneurs [Shield 3.0 – change];
Changes to the conditions for employees’ working time reduction;
Changes regarding the possibility to change the organisation of working time by strategic sectors employers.
Extension of the deadline to draft and approve annual financial statements by 3 months (where the financial year is concurred with the calendar year, these statements should be drafted by the end of June 2020 and approved by the end of September 2020);
Deferral of the obligation to pay PIT advances on remuneration collected in March and April 2020 until 1 June 2020;
(Procedural) tax deadlines will resume or commence to run from 23 May 2020 [Shield 3.0 – new];
Taxpayers who will suffer a tax loss in 2020 due to COVID-19 and who obtain total revenues in 2020 at least 50% lower than in 2019 will be able to makea one-time reduction in the earned income for 2019 by the amount of this loss, but no more than PLN 5,000,000;
Other changes concerning taxes: including VAT, PIT and CIT, tax audits and accounting.
From March 31 2020, the course of the procedural and judicial deadlines in court proceedings (including administrative court proceedings), as well as deadlines for enforcement, criminal, criminal fiscal, petty offence, administrative, tax, customs and fiscal audits and other proceedings conducted under separate/relevant laws and also deadlines of substantive administrative law, has not started or was suspended [Shield 3.0 – change];
From 23 May 2020, procedural and judicial deadlines and also of substantive administrative law, that have not started will start running and suspended deadlines will start running further [Shield 3.0 – new];
New procedural and judicial deadlines, and also deadlines of substantial administrative law, starting after the introduction of the statute amending the Covid-19 law, i.e. after 18 May 2020, shall run in general grounds without applying the Covid-19 laws [Shield 3.0 – new];
During a state of emergency or an epidemic declared due to COVID-19 and within one year of the appeal of the last one, hearings and public hearings in civil and administrative matters will be carried out using technical equipment enabling them to be conducted at a distance with simultaneous transmission of video and sound [Shield 3.0 – new];
Granting the President the right to order a proceedings in camera in civil and administrative court proceedings if certain conditions are met [Shield 3.0 – new];
If the proceedings to take evidence in the case have been carried out in its entirety, the court may, after receiving written statements from the parties or participants in the proceedings, close the hearing and give its decision in the proceedings in camera [Shield 3.0 – new];
The possibility to consider an appeal brought before 7 November 2019 in a proceedings in camera if certain conditions are met [Shield 3.0 – new];
Motions to grant or change securityare to be considered by a single judge in a closed session – without holding a hearing;
No presumption of the delivery of correspondence during the state of epidemic threat or state of epidemic and within 14 days of their revocation. This regulation does not apply to correspondence sent by the Courts and Tribunals, the prosecutor’s office and other law enforcement agencies and court bailiffs;
During the state of epidemic threat or state of epidemic and within 14 days of the revocation of those states – extension of the time limit to collect registered mail, even if more than 14 days after its second notification. This regulation does not apply to correspondence sent by the Courts and Tribunals, the prosecutor’s office and other law enforcement agencies and court bailiffs;
The possibility of delivering correspondence by email to persons holding a trusted profile, in the form of scans, with the addressee’s prior consent to such a form of deliver
Suspension of the deadline to file an application for bankruptcy during the states of epidemic threat or epidemic;
Changes regarding the deadline to file for bankruptcy apply only to debtors who are insolvent due to COVID-19;
Applications for the opening of restructuring proceedings, matters following the opening of restructuring proceedings, cases for the declaration of bankruptcy, and matters following a declaration of bankruptcy are included in the catalogue of urgent cases which the courts may consider during the states of epidemic threat or epidemic.
Possibility for the Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) to grant sureties and guarantees under state aid provisions to medium and large businesses up to the maximum amount of 80% of the loan amount;
This facility will be used to improve the liquidity of existing bank borrowers when disbursing additional working capital loans rather than to grant loans to new customers;
The BGK may treat guarantees or sureties granted by it as “special loan collateral” within the meaning of Art. 70(2) pt. 1 of the Banking Law.
SUPPORT TO ENTERPRENEURS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (ARP)
Ability to change the terms and conditions or repayment date of credit (loans) granted before 8 March, applicable to only small and medium-sized businesses;
Available to all businesses in difficult financial situations as a result of COVID-19;
Not available to companies which have been declared bankrupt or in respect of which restructuring proceedings have been opened, or for which applications to open such proceedings have been filed (more details in the section on restructuring and bankruptcy);
Various forms of reimbursable support – among others, loans, guarantees, sureties;
Goal – to ensure financial liquidity for the duration of the state of epidemic threat or state of epidemic; for a period of 12 months following the revocation of this state; until the negative economic effects are resolved;
Amount and type of support – varies depending on the actual financial consequences incurred by the business in connection with the declaration of a state of epidemic threat or state of epidemic, as well as the scale of the business activity undertaken;
Prohibition on the use of support granted to repay liabilities to, among others, parent companies and subsidiaries;
Applications processed without delay – within 14 days.
RULES FOR GRANTING SUPPORT BY THE POLISH DEVELOPMENT FUND
Possibility to apply for support from thePFR available to all enterprises (micro-, small and medium-sized, and large), with some exceptions (among others, enterprises subject to bankruptcy, liquidation or restructuring proceedings);
In the case of micro- and small and medium-sized enterprises, support is in the form of a subsidy, repayable within 24 months (if certain conditions are met, up to 75% of the subsidy may be redeemed;
Support may be allocated to cover business operating costs (including the repayment of loans), with the exception of acquiring other enterprises and making settlements with affiliates;
For large enterprises, the following forms of financing are available: liquidity financing (loans and bonds), preferential financing (partially non-repayable preferential loans) and investment financing (taking up shares or stock);
Aid to micro and small and medium-sized enterprises has been provided since the end of April 2020 (aid for large enterprises will be granted following European Commission approval) [ Shield 3.0 – change].
Ability to change the terms and conditions or repayment date of credit (loans) granted before 8 March, applicable to only small and medium-sized businesses;
Banks may extend or modify financing already granted notwithstanding the loss of creditworthiness (e.g. Article 70 of the Banking Law) while retaining the ability to terminate credit (loan) agreements;
The KNF has recommended that financing not be renewed on terms as of 31.12.2019 for a period of more than 1 year.
KNF has allowed banks to take simplified positive liquidity forecasts into account if they increase the amount of financing to existing customers above the level available on 31.12.2019.
The maximum value set for non-interest costs for consumer loans limited to 365 days applies only to new agreements concluded during the period covered by the Anti-Crisis Shield;
For loans with a repayment term of less than 30 days – non-interest costs are capped at up to 5% of the total loan amount (calculation formula in the Shield), with a cap of up to 45% of the total loan amount for longer loans;
Impact of the Shield’s provisions on new loans from the same entity, granted within 120 days of the previous disbursement;
Infringements of the Shield may be treated as practices violating consumers’ collective interests.
OPERATION OF SELECTED BODIES IN CAPITAL MARKET ENTITIES AND THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY
Introducing the possibility to remotely participate and adopt resolutions at meetings and boards held by the participants of investment funds;
Permitting the remote participation and adoption of resolutions at bondholders’ meetings (the exclusion of the possibility to remotely participate must be explicitly stated in the terms and conditions of the bond issue);
Permission for the issuer to attach financial statements “older” than 15 months to a bond purchaseproposal – if the Minister of Finance issues the relevant regulation;
Introducing the possibility for the Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) to issue administrative decisions adopted by way of resolutions in the form of electronic documents;
Shorteningthe period within which a company operating a regulated market should inform its participants of changes in the rules of the regulated market or other regulations applicable on the market operated by that company, for the duration of a state of epidemic threat or state of epidemic.
NEW OBLIGATIONS FOR TELECOMS OPERATORS AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Obligations of telecoms operators:
> provision of the location data of persons under quarantine – to the Minister of Digital Affairs, at the request of the supervisory authority;
> provision of anonymised location data on all persons – at the request of the supervisory authority.
Extension of the deadline to fulfil information and reporting obligations to the Office of Electronic Communications;
Uncollected letters are presumed undelivered during a state of epidemic threat or state of epidemic.
Support and relief in the form of state aid, aimed at remedying serious disturbances in the economy, and de minimis aid, granted from national budgets – including, among others, sureties and guarantees, loan repayments and tax exemptions;
Broad potential for state interference in companies’ pricing policies. The minister competent for the economy can issue a regulation setting maximum prices, or maximum wholesale and retail margins, for a wide range of goods. High fines may be imposed for prices or margins higher than those set;
Repeal of regulations regarding the suspension of time limits provided for in administrative law – application of general rules for administrative matters resumes [Shield 3.0 – change];
Delay in the commencement of legislation granting quasi-consumer protections to sole proprietors.
Procedural, judicial and administrative time limits (including those related to decisions in the construction process) start to commence even if suspended [Shield 3.0 – change];
Property tax exemptions for part of 2020 may be granted by municipal councils;
Payment date for the annual fee for perpetual usufruct deferred until 30 June 2020;
Temporary expiry of parties’ obligations under lease agreements for premises in commercial facilities with sales areas exceeding 2000 m2;
Extension of lease terms until 30 June 2020 and limitation of the ability to terminate lease agreements or agreements on the amount of rent;
Exclusion of the principle of deadline suspension for planning procedures relating to zoning and the issue of land development decisions;
Suspension of the obligation to obtain an operating permit during the state of epidemic threat or state of epidemic;
Expanding the possibility for authorities to issue letters in administrative proceedings in electronic form;
Extension of the deadline for the payment of the transformation fee and annual perpetual usufruct fees and expansion of the catalogue of entities to which property tax exemptions or deferrals apply.
Public procurement law does not apply to purchases related to counteracting COVID-19 (where there is a risk of the disease spreading rapidly or if warranted to protect public health);
Public procurement contracts may be amended due to the occurrence of circumstances related to the virus, regardless of whether the conditions set in public procurement law are met; possibility to waive the application of contractual penalties;
The National Appeals Chamber resumes delivering judgements after 2 months of being inactive [Shield 3.0 – changes].
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Extension of deadlines for the submission of annual reports (formerly 30 June 2020):
until 11 September 2020 – for entities obliged to prepare reports on products, packaging and the management of waste arising from them and for electrical and electronic equipment recovery organizations for the year 2019;
until 31 October 2020 – for entities obliged to prepare reports on waste generated and waste management for the year 2019 (with several exceptions);
Removing the obligation to enter information in the Waste Database;
Extension of the validity of waste management decisions pending the resolution of the case – if a decision’s validity expires during the state of epidemic threat and an application was filed for the amendment of the decision obtained or for the issue of a subsequent decision;
Deferral of the obligation to audit electrical and electronic equipment recovery organizations, packaging recovery organizations and processing plant operators for the year 2019 – until 30 September 2020 (normally by 30 April). A copy of the report must be forwarded to the competent authorities (the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (WIOŚ) & the Marshal’s Office) by 15 November 2020 (normally by 30 May) [Shield 3.0 – new];
Water Law – extending the period for the performance of a risk analysis and the submission of an application to establish protection zones covering direct protection areas and indirect protection areas from 3 years to 5 years [Shield 3.0 – new].
FUNCTIONING OF COOPERATIVES, ASSOCIATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, FOUNDATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES
New regulations concerning participation in meetings and adoption of resolutions by governing bodies of cooperatives, associations and foundations by using electronic means of communication during the pandemic;
Adoption of resolutions by collegial bodies of professional self-governments by using electronic means of communication during the pandemic;
New regulations concerning remote participation in meetings of members or delegates of polish sports associations and the possibility of supplementing the composition of general meetings of the members (delegates) during the pandemic;
Extension of the deadline for cooperatives, associations, foundations and other legal persons obliged to prepare and approve financial statements for 2019;
Planned extension of the obligation to register information with the Central Register of Beneficial Owners to foundations, associations registered in the KRS and cooperatives – in legislative process.
The published law amending the law on special arrangements for preventing, counteracting and combating COVID-19 (Ant-Crisic Shield Acts) introduced some changes in bankruptcy and restructuring law – please find below the most important of them.
If you have any further questions please contact Jakub Jędrzejak, leader of the Restructuring&Insolvency team.
Aby zapewnić jak najlepsze wrażenia, korzystamy z technologii, takich jak pliki cookie, do przechowywania i/lub uzyskiwania dostępu do informacji o urządzeniu. Zgoda na te technologie pozwoli nam przetwarzać dane, takie jak zachowanie podczas przeglądania lub unikalne identyfikatory na tej stronie. Brak wyrażenia zgody lub wycofanie zgody może niekorzystnie wpłynąć na niektóre cechy i funkcje.
Techniczne
Always active
Przechowywanie lub dostęp do danych technicznych jest ściśle konieczny do uzasadnionego celu umożliwienia korzystania z konkretnej usługi wyraźnie żądanej przez subskrybenta lub użytkownika, lub wyłącznie w celu przeprowadzenia transmisji komunikatu przez sieć łączności elektronicznej.
Preferencje
Przechowywanie lub dostęp techniczny jest niezbędny do uzasadnionego celu przechowywania preferencji, o które nie prosi subskrybent lub użytkownik.
Statystyka
Przechowywanie techniczne lub dostęp, który jest używany wyłącznie do celów statystycznych.Przechowywanie techniczne lub dostęp, który jest używany wyłącznie do anonimowych celów statystycznych. Bez wezwania do sądu, dobrowolnego podporządkowania się dostawcy usług internetowych lub dodatkowych zapisów od strony trzeciej, informacje przechowywane lub pobierane wyłącznie w tym celu zwykle nie mogą być wykorzystywane do identyfikacji użytkownika.
Marketing
Przechowywanie lub dostęp techniczny jest wymagany do tworzenia profili użytkowników w celu wysyłania reklam lub śledzenia użytkownika na stronie internetowej lub na kilku stronach internetowych w podobnych celach marketingowych.
In case of any further questions, please contact 
If you have any questions regarding this topic, please contact 
If you have any further questions, please contact 
In case of any further questions please contact 
In case of any further questions please contact 
If you have any further questions, please contact 
If you have any questions regarding this topic, please contact 
If you have any further questions, please contact 
