Tarcza Prywatności UE–USA po kolizji w „bezpiecznej przystani”. Zakres ochrony prywatności po wyroku w sprawie C-362/14 Schrems

 EU–U.S. PRIVACY SHIELD AFTER A COLLISION IN THE “SAFE HARBOUR”. THE SCOPE OF PRIVACY PROTECTION AFTER THE JUDGEMENT IN THE C-362/14 SCHREMS CASETransfer of personal data is an essential element of the transatlantic trade relationship, because the EU and the United States are for each other the most important trading partners. Data transfers increasingly form an integral part of their commercial exchanges. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruling of 6 October 2015 in case C-362/14 Schrems reaffirmed the importance of the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, including the situation when such data are transferred outside the EU. In the wake of the hereinabove judgement the transatlantic data transfer has been regulated anew. European Commission has launched EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in order to ensure stronger protection for transatlantic data flows. This article aims to analyse the importance and results of the above-mentioned judgement. EU–U.S. PRIVACY SHIELD AFTER A COLLISION IN THE “SAFE HARBOUR”. THE SCOPE OF PRIVACY PROTECTION AFTER THE JUDGEMENT IN THE C-362/14 SCHREMS CASETransfer of personal data is an essential element of the transatlantic trade relationship, because the EU and the United States are for each other the most important trading partners. Data transfers increasingly form an integral part of their commercial exchanges. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruling of 6 October 2015 in case C-362/14 Schrems reaffirmed the importance of the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, including the situation when such data are transferred outside the EU. In the wake of the hereinabove judgement the transatlantic data transfer has been regulated anew. European Commission has launched EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in order to ensure stronger protection for transatlantic data flows. This article aims to analyse the importance and results of the above-mentioned judgement

The consequences of Brexit in private international law

Brexit is a unique phenomenon as no Member State has ever expressed the will to leave the European Union. Never before had the in-depth impact of a Member State withdrawal been analysed. The issue has started to be analysed after the referendum in which the British voted in favour of leaving the European Union. The topic of the potential consequences of Brexit in the field of private international law concerns, inter alia, national jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, specific procedures of EU uniform law, judicial cooperation between Member States or the functioning of the e-Justice Portal and dynamic forms. Before a given Member State withdraws from the EU, interested parties should have been informed, inter alia, of how pending proceedings will be conducted starting with the withdrawal day, what about proceedings initiated at the date of withdrawal or later on, and what about the rulings of the courts of the applicant state covered by the exequatur procedure before the withdrawal. Therefore, the primary purpose of the article is to determine the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK in the field of private international law. An additional aim of this paper is to better prepare natural and legal persons for the new post-Brexit reality. European integration has brought Europe peace and prosperity and enabled unprecedented cooperation in all areas of common interest. Following the withdrawal decision, the state and its citizens cease to benefit from the acquis communautaire. In fact, the United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020. As far as private international law is concerned, the United Kingdom has become a third country. Subsequently, on 1 February 2020 a transition period has started and it aims to provide more time for citizens and businesses to adapt. The negotiations on the future partnership between the EU and the UK has started in March 2020, but they were postponed due to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is sometimes compared to love that has passed away, but former lovers must continue to meet from time to time to manage certain common affaires. The analysis of the topic leads to the conclusion that, in fact, Brexit is a unique phenomenon that has no added value

Cross-border Transfer of a Seat, Cross-border Conversion or the Coming into Existence of a New Company? Doubts Against the Background of the Court of Justice’s Judgment in C-106/16 Polbud – Wykonawstwo Sp. z o.o

This article focuses on mobility of companies in the European Union in the light of the Court of Justice’s judgment in the C-106/16 Polbud – Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o. case. The Court of Justice has once again interpreted the treaty provisions relating to the EU freedom of establishment in the context of cross-border conversion of companies. The in-depth analysis of the case from the substantive law perspective as well as from the conflict-of-law perspective has raised some doubts with regard to the background of the judgment. Therefore, the article assesses whether the cross-border transfer of a seat took place in the Polbud case or the cross-border conversion, or possibly a new company has come into existence. Most of the analysis is aimed at exposing the risks related to the companies’ mobility under the rules adopted in the Polbud judgment, in particular in the absence of respective European and national regulation