The Parliament has concluded the works on the amendments to the Law on Police. The new provisions are imprecise when it comes to the protection of privileged professional communication. “This law is dangerous for all professionals whose communication is confidential – doctors, advocates, legal advisors, or journalists – and for the people who use their services,” warns advocate Małgorzata Mączka-Pacholak in an interview for the Practical Medicine website.
The European Court of Human Rights has concluded proceedings in the case P. against Poland. Ms. P. submitted an application after criminal proceedings conducted against the prison physician to explain the death of her detained daughter had been discontinued due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. In a unilateral declaration, the Polish government admitted that there had been a violation of art. 2 of the Convention, namely the right to life.
In the recent years, the number of provisional building objects (e.g. street kiosks, pavilions, or container objects) has increased. According to the current regulations, there are two categories of provisional building objects – objects for temporary use and objects which are not permanently connected to the ground. “Erroneous qualification of an object can result in the wrong choice of proceedings for construction work,” warn legal advisor Artur Sidor and Anna Matysiak in their article for Builder magazine.
In the Polish construction market, it is a common practice for several entities to jointly take part in public procurement. “Contractors deciding to execute an investment as part of a consortium should carefully construct their agreement. It is crucial considering their joint and several liability towards the ordering party,” note legal advisor Artur Sidor and Anna Matysiak, lawyers from the Pietrzak Sidor & Partners Law Firm, in the newest issue of “Builder”.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) accepted a unilateral declaration by the Polish government in the case Rembak against Poland. The government acknowledged a violation of art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) as a result of imposition on the applicant of the regime of “dangerous detainee” and of the violation of art. 5 § 3 of the Convention due to the unreasonable duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.