Month: December 2025

Legislative paralysis and MiCA: do Polish companies have to wait for a new law to offer crypto assets?

In an article published in Business Insider, our lawyers, Aleksander Orzeł, LL.B., and Mateusz Kędzior, LL.M., discuss what the lack of a law on the crypto asset market means for Polish investment firms.

The consequences of the lack of a law:

• it is not currently possible for investment firms (i.e. regulated entities) to obtain the status of crypto-asset service providers (‘CASP’)
• limited ability to compete on equal terms with foreign brokers
• Polish investors also lose out – if they want to invest in crypto assets, they cannot use the services of Polish investment firms; they must turn to foreign or unregulated entities

However, the MiCA Regulation provides for certain mechanisms that Polish brokers can use while awaiting the entry into force of the Act. Polish entrepreneurs may consider cooperating with a licensed foreign entity in a model:

• similar to an agency model (the MiCA Regulation does not provide for a specific regime for agency activities; however, they may be conducted on the basis of freedom to conduct business as long as the agent’s activities do not constitute the independent provision of crypto-asset services)

This solution may allow Polish investment firms to operate now, in cooperation with entities licensed outside Poland.

More in the article available HERE.

Our experts, Piotr Haiduk, partner, and Aleksandra Cyniak, senior associate at Rzeczpospolita, analysed the consequences of the CJEU judgment in the Lubreczlik case (C-396/24).
The authors show that despite the groundbreaking significance of the Lubreczlik judgment, the legislator did not take its effects into account in its legislative work, once again shifting the burden of solving the systemic problem of Swiss franc loans onto the courts.

The article addresses, among other things, the following issues:

• discrepancies in case law following the Lubreczlik ruling
• practical consequences for banks, consumers and the justice system
• who benefits from relativising the balance theory and perpetuating legal chaos
• why the balance theory is a win for the justice system
• the significance of the CJEU ruling in case C-510/25 (Adazik)

The authors argue that the government’s Swiss franc bill currently being debated in the Sejm is passé because it was drafted before the Lubreczlik ruling, which the bill’s authors seem to overlook. The aim of the Swiss franc bill is to speed up proceedings and streamline the courts. However, until case C-510/25 (Adazik) is resolved and the effects of this judgment are determined at the statutory level, there will be no acceleration and, consequently, no real relief for the courts.

More in the article available HERE (Polish version only).

Transmission easement – what does the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling of 2 December 2025 mean for transmission companies?

The Tribunal ruled that the acquisition by prescription of a land easement corresponding to the content of a transmission easement is unconstitutional.

The result? A possible wave of claims from property owners, including in cases of:

• easement agreements concluded before 3 August 2008,
• final judgments on the acquisition of easements by prescription.

What should be done now?

• Inventory of properties at risk,
• preparation of a defence strategy against potential claims.

The Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling significantly changes the landscape of disputes concerning transmission infrastructure.

More in our alert available HERE.

Aleksandra Kieliszek from the Romanowski i Wspólnicy law firm writes about non-pecuniary claims relating to personal rights pursued between capital companies and their succession.
In the case analysed, the courts unequivocally confirmed that non-pecuniary claims relating to personal rights – such as apologies or statements – are not subject to succession and are closely linked to the person who committed the infringement. As a result, after the defendant company was removed from the register, the proceedings had to be discontinued. It cannot be continued with its legal successor.

Key points:

• non-pecuniary claims relating to personal rights pursued between companies are not transferred to the legal successor,
• the loss of legal capacity by the defendant prevents a judgment from being issued,
• claims for personal rights cannot be ‘replaced’ with claims under the Unfair Competition Act in order to ‘save’ oneself from discontinuation of proceedings.

This analysis also highlights the importance of precise formulation of claims, especially in corporate disputes, where the right litigation strategy can determine the outcome of a case.

More in the article available HERE.