The ban on trading in references was supposed to cure the ills of the public procurement market. But every drug has side effects—in this case, disorientation of contractors and absurd conclusions when verifying fulfilment of the conditions for participation in public tenders.
The recent introduction into the Polish legal system of the possibility of applying for disclosure of evidence in the other party’s possession in cases alleging antitrust violations has stirred a debate over the treatment of evidence in Polish civil procedure. Should parties be given a broader right to demand production of evidence by the other side?
In July 2017 the Government Legislative Centre published a proposal to amend the Trading in Financial Instruments Act and certain other acts, to bring the Polish legal system into compliance with the EU laws governing the capital market, in particular MiFID II (Directive 2014/65/EU) and MiFIR (Regulation 600/2014). The amendment would significantly change the wording of a number of existing acts and require capital market entities to comply with the new regulations. One notable feature is the introduction of the notion of reverse solicitation, not previously regulated in Polish law.
Long-awaited regulations limiting the scope of the duty to conclude written contracts for supply of agricultural products went into force on 22 August 2017. Under the new rules, the requirement for written contracts applies only to supplies of defined groups of agricultural products from farmers operating in Poland.
According to the World Bank’s latest report, Doing Business 2017, Poland has once again advanced and now holds 24th place among 190 countries ranked in terms of how easy it is to do business there. And in EY’s European Attractiveness Survey 2016 Poland was recognised as the 5th most attractive FDI destination in Europe (1st in CEE). Poland’s main strengths are stable economic growth, a large consumer market, numerous tax incentives, and its location at the crossroads of major continental trade routes.