Category: Bez kategorii

Oceanic S.A. is one of the largest cosmetics companies in Poland, offering high quality cosmetics, dermocosmetics and medicines. Oceanic S.A. creates cosmetics for sensitive and allergic skin, makeup cosmetics, dermocosmetics and cosmetics with highly concentrated active ingredients, which are offered to the clients in Poland and abroad (in over 40 countries).

L’biotica is an important producer and distributor of cosmetics in Poland, offering cosmetics and medical products, with particular focus on pharmacy market.

On the part of our Law Firm the transaction was led by Marek Kempiński – M&A partner and was handled by Mateusz Dubielis and Paulina Banasik.

Marek Kempiński and Mateusz Dubielis were also responsible for antitrust procedure.

In the court dispute, the GKW Law Firm represented the Company, which terminated the employment contract with an employee under a disciplinary procedure, indicating a serious breach of employee obligations as the reason, consisting in the employee’s refusal to undergo a preventive sobriety test.

The Regional Court in Warsaw stated that the order to undergo preventive sobriety tests was lawful, because the provisions of the Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism do not prohibit preventive sobriety tests for bus drivers, and do not indicate the only persons who are authorized to conducting the sobriety tests.

The refusal to undergo a preventive sobriety test was a justified reason for terminating the contract under Art. 52 § 1 point of the Labor Code.

The Law Firm appeared on the complaint to the Province Administration Court in Warsaw against the resolution of the Town Council in Piaseczno of September 2015 on the subject of establishing the  Regulations of using the Town Park specifying the ban on  allowing dogs to the premises of the  park in Józefosław.

The Province Administration Court in Warsaw ruled in favour of the plaintiff, and  repealed the item of the resolution regarding allowing dogs on 17 October 2016. In the Court’s opinion, the ban on allowing dogs to a public utility facility, which a park is, constitutes a violation of the competence granted in art. 4 para. 2 pt. 6 of the Act on Maintaining Order and Cleanliness. The Council may impose particular obligations on animal owners, but these obligations must aim at ensuring protection against a threat  or nuisance to people and against the fouling of the premises designated for common use.

In the Court’s opinion, the ban on allowing dogs to given premises is a measure that limits the freedom of movement and staying in a given place excessively. This freedom applies to all the citizens including animal owners. The aim of the Act, in the Court’s opinion,  does not permit such a far-reaching ban as  the one adopted by the Town Council.

The Town Council of Piaseczno appealed against the ruling of the Province Administration Court to the Supreme Administration Court. 

The Supreme Administration Court shared the view of the Court of First Instance, and found the  cassation appeal of the commune illegitimate. The Supreme Administration Court endorsed the position of the Law Firm ruling that the regulations of using the town park violated inhabitants’ rights, animal carers, prohibiting them from entering a publicly available area, which constitutes the limitation of freedom and human and civil rights.

 

More  information at:

www.prawo.pl/samorzad/wlasciciel-psa-nie-moze-byc-ograniczony-w-wolnosci-poruszania,370727.html

On the 3^rd of December 2018, 39 attorneys, legal counsels, and foreign lawyers received the title of “the Lawyer of 30 years” during a gala in the Sobański Palace in Warsaw. Michael Davies, the Counsel of the law Firm of Grabalski, Kempiński & Partners, among them.

The title of “the Lawyer of 30 years” was awarded to the lawyers who played a key role in the creation and development of the Polish market of law firms within last thirty years. The distinctions were handed in by the member of the presidium of  the Polish Bar,  att. Ziemisław Gintowt, and the dean of  the Warsaw Bar Association, att. Włodzimierz Chróścik. The titles were awarded by the chapter acting  under the auspices of the Polish  Association of Legal Employees and the journal Rzeczpospolita.

Michael Davies specializes in the field of mergers and takeovers, joint ventures, real estate properties, finances, and big  projects. He has also advised on the first commercial privatization in Poland, the first independent energetic project or financing the environment modernization of a big lignite power plant.

He has worked as an expert for the United Nations Institute for Training and Research; and he has developed and run programmes concerning loan agreements and the negotiations of joint ventures, and regulations regarding foreign debts for the UNITAR in the countries of Asia and Africa.

Within the years of 1990 – 2000,  Michael Davies served on the Board of the Section of the Law Energy and the Law of  Natural Resources of the International Bar Association. He gives lectures at the University of Warsaw on the aspects of the financial law and practice. He is the author of many publications regarding issues such as the management of public debt, corporate governance in the light of the Polish law  and foreign investments in Poland.

 

More  information at:

https://www.rp.pl/Prawnicy/312049975-Prawnicy-wyroznieni-tytulem-Prawnik-30-lecia.html 

http://www.pracodawcyprawniczy.org.pl/3-grudnia-2018r-odbyla-sie-uroczysta-gala-wreczenia-wyroznien-prawnik-30-lecia/ 

The Law Firm represented a Company in a court dispute which terminated an employment contract with an employee in the disciplinary mode indicating the gross dereliction of duty involving the refusal of the employee to submit to a preventive breathalyser test as the reason.

Taking into account the appeal cassation of the Law Firm, the Supreme Court stated that submitting to preventive breathalyser tests ought to be qualified as basic duties taking into account the kind of the work performed by the employee.

The employee’s failure to fulfil such a duty can constitute a basis for terminating an employment contract in the mode of art. 52 § 1 of the Labour Code. The Supreme Court indicated that the employee was bound with the supervisor’s instruction to submit to such a test, and a refusal to follow such an instruction constitutes a gross dereliction of employees’ duties.

The ruling of the Supreme Court has a significant practical meaning. Until so far, the position according to which an employee cannot be punished by the employer for the sole refusal of submitting to a breathalyser test unless there has been a justified suspicion regarding sobriety has prevailed in judicial practice.