wyrok precedensowy
English translation: a precedent-setting verdict/ruling
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 19:36 Apr 1, 2015 |
| Polish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D. United States Local time: 03:31 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | precedent ruling/judg(e)ment |
| ||
| 2 +2 | a precedent-setting verdict/ruling |
|
| Summary of reference entries provided | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| pytanie: jaka jest roznica pomiedzy wyrokiem precedensowym a wyrokiem bez precedensu? |
|
| Discussion entries: 1 | |
|---|---|
Answers
9 mins confidence: 
precedent ruling/judg(e)ment Explanation: "Verdict" to werdykt ławy przysięgłych (nie końcowy wyrok sądu). |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
13 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
peer agreement (net): +2a precedent-setting verdict/ruling Explanation: a possible interpretation -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 4 hrs (2015-04-02 00:00:00 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Poland's Supreme Administrative Court in the first week of October passed a precedent-setting verdict in a case over property confiscated by the state in 1949 from Maria Hladyk, a Lemko who was compulsorily resettled in 1947 from her village in Beskid Niski, a region in southeastern Poland. http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2001/420102.shtml cccccccccccccccccccccccccc Rokita was jubilant after the verdict which he said might oblige police to justify detentions. got my satisfaction but this precedent-setting verdict http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1987/09/25/page/3/article... cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc Wojciech Tomczyk, the plaintiff's attorney, stressed that neither the Constitution nor any of Poland's EU commitments prevented the court from issuing a ruling on this precedent-setting complaint, as the court with the "final say." https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/75/758949_poland-italy-po... cccccccccccccccccccccccccc The verdict in the precedent.-setting case was hailed by the Polish armed forces and many Poles, but the prosecutor, who had demanded . https://www.google.com/search?num=100&espv=2&q=precedent-set... ccccccccccccccccccccccccc Chadbourne & Parke Wins Precedent-Setting Polish Tax Case http://www.chadbourne.com/newsevents/NewsList.aspx?NewsTypes... cccccccccccccccccccccccc n January 9, 2014 the Court of Appeals in Warsaw issued a precedent-setting judgment in so-called "trademark parody” case. Andrzej Tomaszek, partner DTW represented pro bono the defendants against infringement claims brought tothe court by Allegro, which found re-working of the logo as opposed to Allegro’s good name and reputation. The Court of First Instance issued a judgment for the benefit of the plaintiff, however the Court of Appeals upheld the position of the defendants attorney and changed the verdict, arguing that "objective criticism was important to the extent, which excludes unlawfulness ob breaching of the reputation of the company". More details could be found in the article published by Gazeta Wyborcza. DTW successfully represented Emperia Holding S.A. in an arbitration dispute against EY before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce 03-01-2014 On 11 December 2013 the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce awarded to Emperia Holding from the company of Ernst&Young Audit 795,000 zlotys increased by statutory interest – as compensation in connection with the improper performance of a contract executed between Emperia Holding S.A. and Eurocash S.A. on the one part and Ernst & Young Audit Sp. z o.o. on the other, as well as almost 840,000 zlotys - as reimbursement of costs of the proceeding. . In the arbitration proceedings Emperia Holding was represented by a team of DTW lawyers led by advocate Tomasz Ludwik Krawczyk and advocate Marcin Szymanski. The amendment the Public Procurement Act (PPA) 01-01-2014 On December 9, 2013 the amendment to the Public Procurement Act (PPA) was published and it entered into force on the day of 24th December 2013. The amendment regulates the issue of subcontracts in regard to realisation of public procurements, in particular those applicable to construction works. The provisions referring to this matter, that were in force hitherto, although regulated the conditions of entering into subcontracts, including period of subcontract's conclusion, its alterations and annulment, collaterals and granting advances to subcontractors but did not covered the issue of subcontracts in regard to procurements for construction works. In this area the Public Procurement Act used to cross-reference with the Civil Code. New regulation serves the purpose of: 1) increasing security of right realisation of public procurements, 2) selection of contractors with necessary capacity for realisation of public procurements, 3) increasing protection of legitimate rights of subcontractors participating in the process of realisation of public procurements, in particular their right to punctual and full payments, 4) limitation of the risk of occurrence of disputes in the course of realisation of public procurements, 5) ensuring appropriate quality of public procurements' realisation by entrusting them to the subcontractors of necessary capacity. The amendment added to article 2 of PPA point 9b in which the term "subcontract” has been defined as an agreement entered into in writing and of valuable consideration. The subject of a subcontract will can be either providing of services, deliveries as well as construction works being a part of a public procurement. The amendment includes also new provisions on the Terms of Reference in added points 10-12 in article 36 paragraph 2 of PPA. According to the new regulation the employer, despite the subject of a procurement, will be able to demand in the Terms of Reference that the contractor executes part of the procurement personally (it is without employing subcontractors). The amendment also provides further detailed regulation on the matter of subcontracting in public procurements regarding construction works. According to the new article 36a paragraph 1 of PPA the rule that the employer has a freedom of entrusting parts of the procurement to subcontractors has been sustained. However for the purpose of providing appropriate realisation of the procurement personally by the contractor, whose capacity had been verified in the course of tender, certain exceptions were introduced. First of all in certain situations the employer can make a reservation that key parts of procurement must be executed personally by the contractor (article 36a paragraph 2 of PPA). The amendment allows the employer to demand that contractors include in their offers or their requests to participate in the tender proceedings, information on the parts of procurement which realisation they are going to entrust to subcontractors and to include names of proposed subcontractors (article 36b paragraph 1 of PPA). In the course of proceedings the contractor may alter his declaration on this matter by proposing different entities as subcontractors or even resign from entrusting procurement to subcontractors (article 36b paragraph 2 of PPA). For the purpose of increasing liquidity of contractors, subcontractors and further subcontractors and ensuring punctual payment of subcontractors' and further subcontractors' fees the amendment introduced specific provisions regarding conditions of realisation of procurements for construction works with a period of realisation longer than 12 months (article 143a of PPA). For the purpose of ensuring punctual payment of subcontractors' fees and realisation of procurements in the manner compatible with standards set in the Terms of Reference the new law regulated also rules of acceptance of construction works subcontracts by the employer.(article 143b of PPA) The new regulation introduced obligation of the employer to pay subcontractor's or further subcontractor's due fee in case it had not been paid by the contractor. Such direct payment shall apply to the situation in which the subcontract for construction works had been accepted by the employer, or had been notified to the employer in case the subcontract's subject was delivery of goods or providing services. To ensure the effectiveness of the new regulation the amendment defined mandatory provisions on subcontracts to a public procurement contract (article 143d of PPA). Archive http://www.dt.com.pl/index.php?mod=aktualnosci&r=2014&lang=e... |
| |
Grading comment
| ||