The Act of 26 April 2019 Amending the Agricultural System Act and Certain Other Acts made changes to the trading in agricultural real estate in Poland. It also clarified the procedure and conditions for consent to acquisition of agricultural real estate by an entity not meeting the definition of an individual farmer, and not qualifying as a family member of the seller or other entity exhaustively listed in Art. 2a(3) of the Agricultural System Act.
The act of 9 November 2018 amending a number of laws, including the Banking Law, in order to reinforce oversight of the financial market entered into force at the beginning of this year. A new chapter was consequently added to the Banking Law concerning forced acquisition of banks coordinated by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF). The act has now been in force for several months, and it is a good occasion to examine in more detail the new powers vested in KNF.
The condition of possession applied only to legal successors of the prior owner of Warsaw property and became irrelevant after 1946
In judgments dated 22 May 2019, the Province Administrative Court in Warsaw issued its first extensive ruling on the condition of possession under the Warsaw Decree. The court held that this condition applied only to the legal successors of the prior owner of the real estate and was a condition for effective filing of a decree application, not granting of the application. And after 1946, this condition became irrelevant.
The Retail Sales Tax Act entered into force on 1 September 2016, but so far the state has not raised a single zloty from the tax. Since the European Commission filed an appeal on 24 July 2019 against the judgment of the General Court, the first collection of the tax has been further postponed.
In the judgment issued on 24 June 2019 in Commission v Poland (Case C-619/18), the Court of Justice held that the law reducing the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court of Poland violated Art. 19 of the Treaty on European Union, which amplifies the principle of the rule of law set forth in Art. 2 of the treaty. Why was this judgment issued?