Month: May 2025

Limited liability companies (spółki z o.o.) are among the most popular types of capital companies. A minority shareholder in such a company has specific rights and obligations which, in practice, can become a source of numerous challenges – both for themselves and the company as a whole. In a limited liability company, a minority shareholder does not have decisive influence over the strategic decisions taken by the company, which usually require a majority of votes. But what happens if such a shareholder decides to leave the company? Does this process have to be complicated and full of obstacles? What difficulties does a minority shareholder face when exiting a limited liability company, and are there ways to make this process simpler and more transparent?

 

Difficulties related to exiting the company

For a minority shareholder, leaving a limited liability company can be quite a challenge. The simplest solution that comes to mind is selling their shares. However, in practice, this decision is governed by the company’s articles of association, which precisely define the terms of sale, pre-emptive rights, and the requirement to obtain the management board’s consent.
But what if the proposed price for the shares is unsatisfactory, or the shareholder cannot obtain the necessary consent? In such cases, it is possible to consider applying to the court – either with a request for consent to sell or with a petition to dissolve the company. Such procedures, however, are time-consuming and often deter potential investors from completing the transaction. Additionally, the minority shareholder must demonstrate valid reasons before the court to justify the sale of their shares, which further complicates the matter.

 

It’s meant to be easier, but is it better?

According to the latest reports, minority shareholders in limited liability companies can expect improved conditions. The Ministry of Justice has announced that it is working on amendments to the Commercial Companies Code aimed at simplifying and speeding up the process of exiting the company. Although the details of the planned changes have not yet been disclosed, their introduction looks promising.
Currently, leaving a limited liability company as a minority shareholder involves numerous difficulties, but reforming the regulations could significantly simplify the process and reduce the risk of conflicts. If the announced changes come into force, they could mark a step towards fairer and more effective management of conflict situations in limited liability companies.

 Did you miss the deadline to file your tax return? Or perhaps you concealed the true scale of your business activities from the tax authorities? Did you forget to pay the due taxes on time? Unfortunately, for various reasons such as forgetfulness, lack of knowledge, or a simple mistake, it often happens that tax obligations are not fulfilled on time or in accordance with applicable regulations. In such situations, there is a concern that the taxpayer will be penalised. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid penalties through the institution of “czynny żal” (active repentance), i.e. voluntary notification of committing a tax offence or tax misdemeanor.

 

What is czynny żal?

According to Article 16 of the Fiscal Penal Code, a perpetrator who, after committing a prohibited act, notifies the competent authority responsible for prosecution and discloses essential circumstances of the act, in particular persons cooperating in its commission, shall not be subject to penalty for a tax offence or tax misdemeanor. This allows one to avoid punishment, provided certain conditions are met.
 

How to submit czynny żal?

An entrepreneur will not be entitled to benefit from czynny żal if:

• the prosecuting authority already has clear documented information about the commission of the tax offence or misdemeanor;
• the prosecuting authority has commenced official activities, in particular searches, verification actions, or inspections aimed at uncovering the tax offence or misdemeanor, unless these activities did not provide grounds to initiate proceedings for the prohibited act;
• the person directed the execution of the disclosed prohibited act;
• the person exploited another person’s dependence on them and ordered that person to commit the disclosed prohibited act;
• the person organised a group or association for the purpose of committing a tax offence;
• the person incited another to commit a tax offence or tax misdemeanor.

Czynny żal will therefore be effective only when the entrepreneur admits to committing a tax offence or misdemeanor *before* the prosecuting authority independently documents the offence or before the authority begins activities aimed at detecting the offence or misdemeanor. Therefore, despite the absence of a statutory deadline for submitting czynny żal, it is recommended that the entrepreneur acts as soon as possible.
To use this institution, a written notification must be submitted to the appropriate tax authority. This notification should thoroughly describe the mistake made, indicate the circumstances, and detail remedial actions taken, i.e. settling outstanding tax liabilities along with due interest. It is worth remembering that czynny żal can be submitted not only in writing but also orally for the record at the tax office. Czynny żal can also be submitted electronically, for example via the e-Tax Office (e-Urząd Skarbowy).

Importantly, czynny żal should be submitted by the person who failed to fulfil the obligation. Thus, if an entrepreneur uses an accounting office and the fault lies with the office, then the office is the one to submit czynny żal.

 

Summary

Czynny żal is an institution that can help the taxpayer and protect them from serious consequences. It is crucial that czynny żal meets all formal requirements. Although submitting czynny żal does not exempt one from paying outstanding taxes and interest, it allows avoiding additional penalties. In case of doubts, we invite you to contact us, also remotely: https://atl-law.pl/prawo-podatkowe/

Each of us may face situations that force us to be absent from work. An unexpected accident, a sudden illness of a loved one, or infrastructure failures are circumstances that can affect anyone. In such moments, it becomes crucial to understand our rights and take appropriate steps to properly justify our absence from work.
Since April 2023, new provisions of the Labour Code have come into effect, introducing the possibility of leave due to force majeure. According to Article 148¹ of the aforementioned Act, an employee is entitled to leave from work within a calendar year amounting to 2 days or 16 hours due to force majeure in urgent family matters caused by illness or accident, if the immediate presence of the employee is necessary. What does this mean in practice?

Force majeure

Force majeure is a term borrowed by the legislator from the Civil Code, referring to unpredictable and unavoidable events that prevent the performance of obligations. In the context of labour law, this means situations beyond the employee’s control that make it impossible for them to attend work – these are inevitable and independent events that could not have been objectively foreseen. Examples include natural disasters, serious infrastructure failures, or other extreme circumstances.

Conclusion

The employer is obliged to grant leave at the employee’s request – they cannot refuse this leave. The employee may submit the request by phone, SMS, or other forms of communication, no later than on the day of taking the leave. The request should indicate whether the employee wishes to use the full or partial leave entitlement. Leave is granted on an hourly basis, and for employees working part-time, it is calculated proportionally. Partial hours of leave are rounded up to a full hour. Unused 2 days of leave due to force majeure do not carry over to the following year.

Leave due to force majeure vs. leave on demand

Sometimes leave due to force majeure is confused with leave on demand, specified in Article 167² of the Labour Code. The main difference between these types of leave lies in their duration: leave on demand is granted for 4 days in each calendar year, whereas leave due to force majeure, as mentioned, is granted for 2 working days or 16 hours. The deadline for submitting a leave request also differs: the request for leave on demand must be made no later than before the start of the working day, while the request for leave due to force majeure may be made during working hours. Importantly, during leave due to force majeure, the employee retains the right to half of their salary, whereas an employee taking leave on demand is entitled to full pay for the leave period. For leave on demand, the employee is not required to specify the reason for taking this type of leave.

Summary

Understanding the regulations regarding leave due to force majeure is essential for every employee. The new rules grant employees the right to 2 days or 16 hours of leave per calendar year to deal with urgent family matters caused by illness or accident. Knowing these provisions will help employees better manage crisis situations and understand their rights in case of unforeseen events.

On 20 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the District Court of The Hague (rechtbank Den Haag) in case C-540/22 concerning the compatibility of Dutch law provisions with the freedom to provide services within the EU. The case concerned the requirement for an additional residence permit for Ukrainian citizens posted from one EU country to another when their stay in the host country exceeds 90 days.

Exceeding 90 days for Ukrainian citizens

A Slovak employer posted Ukrainian workers to the Netherlands, where their stay exceeded 90 days within a 180-day period. Dutch law requires third-country nationals, including Ukrainians, to obtain a residence permit after this period. This permit defines the conditions, duration of stay, and costs of obtaining it. Consequently, the court in The Hague asked the CJEU whether such requirements comply with EU rules on the freedom to provide services.

Main disputed issues:

– Obligation to obtain a residence permit: The posting parties challenged the requirement to obtain an additional permit after exceeding 90 days’ stay in the Netherlands. – Validity period of the permit: Dutch permits were valid only for the duration of the Slovak permits, resulting in shorter validity than the posting period. – Application fees: The costs for obtaining permits were five times higher than for certificates of lawful residence for EU citizens, which was claimed to constitute an excessive burden.
The preliminary ruling sought to determine whether EU law, including Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), precludes national provisions requiring third-country nationals posted for over 90 days within a 180-day period to hold individual residence permits, the validity of which depends on the permit in the sending country and may not exceed two years, and whose issuance involves fees.

Limitations on permit validity

Dutch law stipulates that the validity period of the residence permit for posted workers may not exceed the validity of their permits in their home country. The State Secretary, extending the duration of posted workers’ employment, issued residence permits matching the length of the Slovak permits. The claimants argued that such limitations are disproportionate regarding the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU. However, the CJEU held that such rules may be justified if aimed at preventing illegal stay and entry, as well as protecting public order. This means that workers posted for over 90 days cannot automatically benefit from the right to access the labour market in the host country.

Costs of obtaining permits

Regarding the amount of fees, the CJEU noted that these were comparable to the costs of obtaining a regular work permit for third-country nationals. The opposition pointed out, however, that the fees were five times higher than those charged to EU citizens, hindering the freedom to provide services. The Court observed that such fees may restrict freedom to provide services but EU law does not prohibit charging them as long as they are not disproportionate.

CJEU ruling

The Court ruled that Articles 56 and 57 TFEU do not preclude national provisions requiring posted workers exceeding 90 days to obtain residence permits, provided the conditions are not disproportionate. Permits may be limited to the validity of documents from the sending country and may require fees comparable to those for work permits for third-country nationals.

Practical conclusions:

The CJEU ruling indicates that Dutch regulations requiring Ukrainian citizens to obtain an additional residence permit comply with EU freedom to provide services. Nevertheless, each posting should be assessed individually, considering possible exceptions to this requirement. For assistance regarding the posting of Ukrainian citizens or workers from other countries, please refer to our law firm’s offer and contact us.

In August 2023, regulations on the posting of drivers in road transport came into force, aimed at aligning the standards of the Polish transport market with EU conditions through the implementation of the European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of 15 July 2020. Although these regulations were intended to strengthen control over carriers from third countries, the reality looks different. Carriers from outside the EU, except Switzerland, are obliged under the introduced regulations to notify the National Labour Inspectorate of the posting of drivers on Polish territory. A year after their introduction, the question remains: do the regulations actually work, or are they merely a façade that changes little?

Notification to the National Labour Inspectorate – a formality or real control?

Road carriers from third countries posting their drivers to Poland must meet a number of requirements to ensure their operations comply with Polish law. The introduced regulations provide, among other things, for the necessity to equip the driver with appropriate documents confirming their posting. Each time before a road transport operation within Polish territory, the carrier must issue a posting confirmation for the driver. This document is prepared on a form specified in the Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 7 August 2023. During transport operations on Polish territory, a driver posted from a third country must have the following in the vehicle:
1. A paper posting confirmation, compliant with the current template.
2. Evidence confirming the performed road transports, such as consignment notes, appropriate international transport permits, or driving forms.
3. Tachograph records compliant with the AETR Agreement (European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in International Road Transport).
The driver is obliged to present these documents upon request to inspectors of the Road Transport Inspection during roadside checks.

Blind control – lack of key tools

Doubts arise primarily regarding Article 23 of the aforementioned Act, which defines the scope of road control over the posting of drivers from third countries on Polish territory by inspectors of the Road Transport Inspection. In theory, this control covers verification of the data contained in the documents presented by the driver as described above; however, in practice, inspectors can only verify whether the driver possesses all the required documents, not whether they are genuine. It can thus be stated that under current regulations, the control of posted drivers from third countries on Polish territory is incomplete. It would suffice for the legislator to grant inspectors of the Road Transport Inspection access to the information provided to the National Labour Inspectorate, as is the case with member state controls using the Internal Market Information System (IMI) in the “Transport” module – yet this requires a legal amendment.

Necessary legal change

Current regulations require amendment to enable inspectors of the Road Transport Inspection to carry out effective controls. Although the Ministry of Infrastructure is said to be aware of the problem, changes to the regulations will not happen overnight. Implementing a new IT system that would allow effective control involves costs and the need for detailed analysis. And as is well known, when costs and EU regulations are involved, rapid changes cannot be expected.

Summary

The current regulations concerning the posting of drivers contain significant gaps that cast doubt on the effectiveness of controls. The regulations leave much to be desired. Without the possibility for inspectors of the Road Transport Inspection to verify notifications, it is impossible to conduct a reliable control over carriers from third countries. For now, the system requires decisive reforms so that it ceases to be merely a formality and begins to genuinely function in protecting the transport market.

Decisions to terminate an employment contract without notice can have serious consequences for both the employer and the employee. However, the latest ruling of the Supreme Court (II PSK 103/23) marks a step towards an interpretation more favourable to employers.

Factual Justification

The District Court for Warsaw Praga-North dismissed the claim of R. G., which was subsequently upheld by the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court. Despite this, the employee’s representative filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, alleging a gross violation of labour law. The situation began when the employer, T. Ltd., decided to terminate the employee’s contract without notice, citing serious breaches of work duties. The employee disagreed with this decision and brought a case seeking compensation for unlawful dismissal.

What Did the Supreme Court Rule?

The Supreme Court held that the cassation appeal could not be accepted for consideration, even though a qualified breach of labour law had occurred. However, as stated in the reasoning, the basis for accepting a cassation appeal is not an obvious breach of a specific substantive or procedural legal provision, but a situation in which such a breach caused an obviously incorrect ruling. In this case, the court found that this was not so.
The Court emphasised that under Article 30 § 4 of the Labour Code, when terminating an employment contract without notice, the employer is obliged to indicate the reason justifying such a decision. This provision aims to allow the employee to defend themselves against an unjustified dismissal. Therefore, in cases of termination without notice, there should be no ambiguity: the employee has the right to know exactly why the employer is ending the contract.

According to the Supreme Court, a lack of precision does not always mean a breach of the law, because an imprecise indication of the reason by the employer does not violate Article 30 § 4 of the Labour Code if, in the circumstances of the case and considering other information provided to the employee by the employer, this constitutes a sufficient specification of the reason.

Summary

The latest ruling of the Supreme Court from April 2024 confirms that clarity is key in matters concerning the termination of employment contracts. Employers should indicate the reasons for termination without notice in a precise and understandable manner. If you have any questions or doubts regarding labour law, please do not hesitate to contact our Law Firm. You can count on comprehensive service and full commitment at every stage of your case.

The proposal of a four-day workweek is gaining increasing interest in many countries around the world. This idea has both many supporters and staunch opponents. Nevertheless, more and more companies are beginning to see potential benefits from a shorter workweek. Among the most frequently mentioned are increased employee productivity and better work-life balance. In light of the growing popularity of the topic, the question arises: does the four-day workweek model have a chance to become the new standard in the labor market? This change undoubtedly requires careful consideration, analysis, consultations, and adjustment to the current specifics of employment sectors. Is the four-day workweek the future that sooner or later awaits us all?

 

Possible options

According to the latest media reports, the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy has taken steps towards shortening working hours. Currently, two variants of reduced working time are under consideration: the introduction of a four-day workweek or the reduction of the weekly working time to 35 hours.
The first variant — working four days a week — allows for an additional day off. However, it is not yet clear what challenges employees will face. Will they have to work four 10-hour days, or will the standard 8-hour workdays simply be compressed into four days? It is also possible that other variants will be introduced, such as three days of 9 hours and one day of 8 hours. It remains unknown which variant will be adopted, but each solution will require adjustments from both employees and employers. This model could significantly improve work-life balance but will demand greater efficiency from employees in a shorter timeframe.

The second variant assumes reducing the weekly working time to 35 hours distributed over five days, which means working 7 hours per day instead of the current 8. This approach appears to be less radical than introducing a four-day workweek and offers some benefits, making it potentially easier for employers to accept.

Both variants primarily aim to increase productivity and improve the quality of life for employees, but their implementation will not be an easy task. The choice between these models will depend on many factors, including thorough labor market analyses, industry specifics, and—perhaps most importantly—the expectations of employers and employees. Social consultations will be necessary to assess which model better suits the needs of the Polish labor market. On one hand, employers will need to consider their organizational capabilities and the potential costs related to implementing a new system. On the other hand, employees will need to adapt to new conditions, which will require changing habits and redefining their approach to professional duties. The final decision should be the result of a comprehensive process considering economic and social aspects, as well as reaching a compromise and readiness of both parties to adapt.

 

Summary

We will likely have to wait a while for changes regarding the shortening of the workweek — there are no signs that the labor code will be amended in the near future. However, the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy’s declaration that changes will occur during the current ruling party’s term allows hope that by 2027 we might witness groundbreaking changes in the labor market. Is the four-day workweek the future awaiting us all? Everything indicates that the answer may come soon.

The government is undertaking intensive efforts to simplify the process of starting and running a business for entrepreneurs. The Ministry of Development and Technology, responding to market needs, points out that: “Taking into account entrepreneurs’ expectations as well as changes in the legal and economic environment and over 11 years of experience with the CEIDG IT system, it is worth proposing further legal solutions aimed at facilitating business activities and expanding the scope of information published via CEIDG.” But what solutions are being proposed?

 

What awaits entrepreneurs?

The proposed changes primarily aim to increase the transparency and accessibility of key data. The draft law aims to:

• Simplify the registration process and create a single place (CEIDG) for publishing information about civil law partnerships;
• Introduce the possibility to submit CEIDG registration applications only online, thus eliminating paper forms;
• Digitize and expand the scope of information on powers of attorney granted by entrepreneurs in CEIDG;
• Automate processes and enable data exchange through integration of CEIDG with other IT systems;
• Allow licensing authorities to maintain registers of regulated activities via a service provided by the Ministry of Development and Technology (MRiT), and clarify the scope of data transmitted by licensing authorities and craft chambers;
• Increase efficiency and optimize processes related to the CEIDG register and the Entrepreneur Information Point (PIP), including expanding the catalogue of documents attachable to the CEIDG registration application, e.g., notification of cessation of VAT-taxable activities (VAT-Z);
• Clarify provisions concerning, among others: succession management, legal title to real estate, data sharing in CEIDG, trustees, information on craft qualifications, and grounds for correcting CEIDG entries.

Undoubtedly, the most anticipated solution concerns the civil law partnership, which envisions the creation of a “single window” for its registration. The registration application submitted electronically via CEIDG will be automatically forwarded to other offices, such as the Tax Office, the Central Statistical Office (GUS), or the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS). A universal civil partnership agreement template, developed in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance, is also planned. Moreover, it will be possible to attach other forms necessary to complete formalities, e.g., VAT forms, civil law transaction tax documents, and ZUS forms. Additionally, an integrated application for civil law partnerships will be created, eliminating the need to submit different forms to separate offices. Thanks to this, all formalities related to the company registration can be handled in one place.

The next legislative step will be the gradual introduction of the obligation to submit applications to CEIDG exclusively online, with the simultaneous withdrawal of paper submissions. The digitization process is expected to start as early as October 1, 2024, initially covering registration applications for new entrepreneurs. Other applications, such as suspensions, resumptions, business closures, or changes in entries, will still be accepted in paper form for two more years — until October 1, 2026 — allowing entrepreneurs time to adapt.

Modifications will also affect the mObywatel application. It will become a modern tool enabling entrepreneurs quick and easy access to data contained in CEIDG and convenient modification of such data. Via this app, entrepreneurs will be able to submit applications to CEIDG and download registration certificates directly to their phones. The application will also provide access to key information such as NIP, REGON, address, PKD, and invoicing data, which can be sent via SMS, email, or messenger — greatly facilitating daily business management.

 

Summary

The new regulations are intended to respond to contemporary economic challenges and to strengthen the competitiveness of Polish enterprises. These changes may represent an important step toward building a friendlier and more efficient environment for conducting business in Poland. Work on the bill is ongoing, so a real assessment of its effects will require some patience.

However, if you already have any questions or doubts, we encourage you to contact our Law Firm. You can count on comprehensive service and full commitment at every stage of your case.

 

 

 Starting from January 1, 2025, a completely new classification of PKD codes (Polish Classification of Activities) is set to come into effect. Entrepreneurs face a number of challenges. The new regulations require adapting business activities to updated codes, which entails making changes in records such as CEIDG, REGON, and KRS.

PKD is a system that groups and classifies business activities conducted by companies and entrepreneurs in Poland. The previous codes, used since 2007, will cease to apply, to be replaced by new, more detailed codes better suited to the modern economy.

The classification was developed based on changes made to the United Nations classification (International Standard Industrial Classification) and the European Union classification NACE Rev. 2.1.

 

Scope of changes

The PKD 2025 classification includes:

1. Methodological principles – describing the rules for the construction and use of the classification;
2. A list of classification entries, from the most general level – sections (denoted by letter symbols), through divisions (two-digit symbols), groups (three-digit symbols), classes (four-digit symbols), to the most detailed level – subclasses (symbols consisting of four digits and a letter). The levels from sections to classes correspond to the NACE Rev. 2.1 classification. The subclasses specified in the draft regulation – the national level – were developed based on proposals submitted by classification users, which were then collected and analyzed by the Central Statistical Office (GUS);
3. Explanations for each classification entry describing their scope.

The regulations in the draft will affect legal entities, organizational units without legal personality, and natural persons conducting business activities within the scope of the regulations.

 

Challenges for entrepreneurs

The change of PKD codes will require entrepreneurs to invest time and considerable organizational effort. Above all, entrepreneurs will need to carefully analyze the new codes and then assign them appropriately to the nature of their activities. Multisector companies may face difficulties in selecting new codes that best reflect the diversity of their business.

The new codes will initially apply to all newly registered companies and in the case of any change in the type of activity recorded in CEIDG.

Other entrepreneurs will have the opportunity to use a transition period allowing them to adapt more smoothly to the new reality. Entrepreneurs operating before January 1, 2025, will be able to continue using the old PKD codes for the next two years unless they decide to change them voluntarily.

From January 1, 2027, there will be no room for voluntary changes – failure to update codes independently will result in automatic updates carried out by administrative authorities. The CEIDG, REGON, and KRS databases will then be updated, assigning companies the new PKD 2025 codes.

 

Summary

The new PKD code classification, effective from January 1, 2025, introduces significant changes that will affect all entrepreneurs operating in Poland. Entrepreneurs should prepare now to update their data in public registers such as CEIDG, KRS, and REGON to avoid potential legal and administrative problems.

If you have any questions or doubts, we encourage you to contact our Law Firm. You can count on comprehensive service and full commitment at every stage of your case.

 

 

 

 

The government bill amending the Act on special solutions related to the removal of flood effects and some other acts (also called the flood special act) has been submitted for the first reading at the Sejm session.

This bill introduces a range of changes and regulations aimed at more effective management of crisis situations related to floods and support for affected entities.

However, these changes will also affect employers – below we present the most important guidelines.

 

Additional leave

According to the latest guidelines: “From the date the Act enters into force until December 31, 2024, the employer is obliged to grant, upon employee’s request, up to 4 additional days of paid annual leave for flood-related recovery activities, to be taken on dates indicated by the employee. The employee must submit the leave request no later than on the first day of the leave.”

In the justification to this provision, it was noted that: “The added Article 61a of the draft amending Act provides the employee with the right to be granted by the employer up to 4 additional days of leave on demand, within the scope of the employee’s annual leave entitlement. This right addresses situations where the employee has not been directly affected by the flood but wishes to help those affected, for example as a relative or volunteer, for which leave from work is necessary. The provision stipulates that this right will only apply until the end of 2024, and the total amount of leave granted under this provision, leave granted under Article 8a of the “flood act” and leave on demand granted under the Labor Code must not exceed 8 days.“

Additionally, the employer will be obliged to grant an employee affected by the flood leave from work of up to 20 days for flood recovery directly related to their property or property of a related or unrelated person living and managing a household together with them. During this leave, the employee retains the right to remuneration. The employee’s application for leave must be submitted no later than on the day of taking the leave. The employer may refuse only if granting the leave is objectively impossible due to the employer’s special needs.

Importantly, the voivodeship marshal, upon the employer’s request submitted via the regional labor office competent for the place of business, will reimburse the employer’s costs for employee remuneration and social security contributions from the Guaranteed Employee Benefits Fund.

 

Intervention benefit

An entrepreneur affected by the flood and conducting business activity on the date of issuing the regulation will be entitled to an additional benefit. The Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) will administer the intervention benefit, which will be financed from the state budget’s special reserve.

To obtain the intervention benefit, the affected entrepreneur will submit an application to ZUS. It may be submitted electronically via an information profile created in the IT system provided by ZUS. The entrepreneur may apply for funds up to the maximum amount of the damage incurred.

The intervention benefit may be granted only to an entrepreneur who:

1. Has suffered damage consisting of loss, damage, or destruction, directly caused by the flood, to material components of the enterprise necessary for the continuation of business activity, and
2. Commits to conducting business activity for at least 6 months from the date of receiving the intervention benefit, and
3. Commits to maintaining the employment level for 6 months from the date of issuing the regulation.

 

Summary

The introduction of the flood special act is an important step toward supporting both employers and employees in the face of flood-related threats. Additional regulations concerning leave, work absences, and intervention benefits aim not only to minimize the crisis effects but also to support efforts to rebuild the affected communities. Employers should be aware of upcoming changes and prepare for their implementation to effectively use available support mechanisms.

It will also be crucial to monitor further legislative work, which is currently underway. Possible amendments and changes should be taken into account.

If you have any questions or concerns, we encourage you to contact our Law Firm. You can count on comprehensive service and full commitment at every stage of your case.