Almost a year and a half after the entry into force of the Family Foundation Act, it appears to be enjoying enormous interest among entrepreneurs – according to data as of May 2024, over 1,000 family foundations are already registered. The data show a huge interest in this new form of business succession. Despite some drawbacks and interpretative ambiguities (for example, the issue of treating the mere joining of commercial companies as economic activity), the changes introduced by the new law convince entrepreneurs to place their assets precisely in this legal form.

Tax Preferences for the Family Foundation

The legislator, aiming to encourage entrepreneurs to use this new form of business asset transfer, introduced among others the following preferences:

• entity exemption from corporate income tax (Article 6(1)(25) of the CIT Act) – CIT at the rate of 15% will arise only in connection with the payment of benefits to beneficiaries or liquidation of the foundation;
• exemption of beneficiaries classified in the so-called zero tax group relative to the founder from personal income tax (PIT) on received benefits or assets left at their disposal after the liquidation of the foundation;
• reduction of PIT from 15% to 10% for foundation beneficiaries belonging to the first and second tax groups.

Family Foundation – A Tool for Tax Avoidance?

Tax exemptions and the possible deferral of the tax obligation encourage activities aimed at tax optimization. However, among entrepreneurs there has arisen concern whether this might constitute actions aimed at tax avoidance. So far, the Head of the National Tax Administration (KAS) has issued two binding tax opinions on this matter.

Facts: Entrepreneur X plans to create a family investment platform using a foundation, by contributing, among other things, shares of a company. The founder presented the following planned course of action:

• establishment of the family foundation;
• contribution of assets, including company shares, to it;
• ongoing operation of the foundation:
  • the foundation obtaining funds for ongoing investments through dividend payments from the company’s current profit or redemption of shares;
  • payment of benefits to the foundation’s beneficiaries;
  • the foundation accumulating funds for further investments through the sale of company shares.

In response, the Head of KAS (opinion dated 12 February 2024, ref. no. DKP3.8082.8.2023) confirmed the entrepreneur’s estimates regarding the more favorable CIT rate compared to the “traditional” way of selling shares by an individual subject to 19% PIT plus the solidarity tax on the excess over PLN 1 million.

After analyzing the provisions of the Family Foundation Act and its rationale, as well as the factual circumstances (the applicant assured that he had unsuccessfully tried to sell the shares so far), the Head of KAS stated that the actions planned by the founder do not meet all the statutory criteria for tax avoidance, despite the possibility of achieving a tax benefit. The favorable position was primarily determined by the taxpayer’s actions not aimed at gaining benefits and not contradicting the assumptions of the Family Foundation Act.

This favorable binding opinion confirms the earlier position of the Head of KAS from 21 December 2023 (ref. no. DKP3.8082.5.2023), which allows assuming that tax authorities are not opposed to establishing and running family foundations, as long as it is consistent with the assumptions and purpose of the Act.

In August of this year, the Ministry of Finance published a draft regulation on the Government Legislation Centre’s website concerning exemptions from the obligation to keep sales records using cash registers. This periodically issued act, based on Article 111(8) and Article 145a(17) of the VAT Act, regulates the issue of exemptions from the obligation to register sales transactions on a fiscal cash register. The current regulation is valid until December 31, 2024. The Ministry has therefore already started work on its new version.

Important Changes in Fiscalization

The draft new regulation largely does not foresee significant changes and repeats the solutions applied in the currently valid version. However, a few elements cause considerable controversy, announcing serious changes in the vending machine industry.

Under the current legal framework, the supply (sale) of goods using devices intended for automatic sales, which accept payment and dispense goods in an unattended system, is exempt from the obligation to fiscalize (issue receipts). The exemption also covers devices providing other services, including ticket vending machines (e.g., machines selling transport tickets (not applicable to public mass transport), or so-called parking meters). The exemption applies to most transactions transferring ownership of goods – the regulation in several cases imposes the obligation to fiscalize transactions even if carried out through self-service machines (especially regarding fuel sales at self-service stations). This exemption has so far significantly facilitated the ongoing operation of vending machines – the lack of a device printing receipts relieves the machine owner from incurring additional costs and eliminates the need to temporarily disable the machine in case of a malfunction of the receipt issuing module or lack of thermal paper needed to print sales confirmations. The exemption from the obligation to fiscalize – one of many advantages of unattended, 24/7 vending machines – seems to be coming to an end.

Response from the Ministry

The Ministry of Finance justifies its decision with the necessity to tighten the sales recording system. The more rigorous approach to the fiscalization obligation is the Ministry’s response to market demands and signals about irregularities in reporting sales volume by inspection authorities. The Ministry, addressing the need to adapt currently used vending machines to new requirements, has provided a fairly long adjustment period – the fiscalization obligations regarding transactions carried out with the above devices will come into force on January 1, 2026.

What Do Entrepreneurs Think?

The draft regulation is only entering the public consultation phase – we do not yet have opinions from interested parties, but it is already possible to consider the potential increase in prices of products and services provided by self-service machines, resulting from the need for technological adaptation. The question remains open as to the scale of possible revenue gains for the State Treasury resulting from tightening the sales transaction recording system.

Another Favorable Ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court

The Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) in its judgment of January 9, 2024 (case ref. II FSK 434/21) confirmed the existing case law line, according to which expenses incurred by the employer related to the delegation of an employee to work abroad in another EU country (costs of accommodation, meals, transport, or reimbursement of costs actually incurred by the employee) do not constitute employee income within the meaning of Article 12(1) of the Personal Income Tax Act (PIT), and therefore are not subject to taxation.

Factual Background

Company X, providing its services in Poland and other EU countries, employs workers mainly to perform tasks within Poland. To carry out tasks abroad, the Company sends its employees to other member states. Accommodation, meals, and transport to the workplace are organized in such a way that employees do not receive per diem allowances for business trips — all the aforementioned costs are fully covered by the delegating employer.

The Company applied to the competent Director of the Tax Chamber for an individual interpretation to determine whether the free provision of accommodation and other necessary benefits to employees during work abroad would result in income from employment within the meaning of Article 12(1) of the PIT Act, i.e., whether it constitutes a gratuitous benefit to the employee subject to taxation. The Company took the position that free accommodation does not generate income for employees, as delegating employees abroad and ensuring proper working conditions is in the interest of the applicant (the employer).

In response to the application, the Director issued an individual interpretation supporting the applicant’s position and justification. However, the Head of the National Tax Administration (KAS) later changed the earlier position to incorrect, which was upheld by the Voivodeship Administrative Court (WSA) in a judgment dismissing the Company’s complaint against the change of interpretation (case ref. III SA/Wa 2844/19).

Position of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA)

As a result of a cassation complaint, the case reached the NSA, which overturned the lower court’s ruling along with the change of the individual interpretation made by the Head of KAS.

In the reasoning of its judgment, the NSA recalled the regulations of the Act of June 10, 2016, on the posting of workers within the provision of services, which implements Directive 96/71 into the Polish legal system. Article 4(5) of this Act provides that remuneration for posted workers includes a posting allowance only to the extent it does not constitute a reimbursement of expenses actually incurred in connection with posting, such as travel, meals, and accommodation costs. This leads to the conclusion that the employer’s benefits or any reimbursement of expenses independently incurred by posted employees to organize working conditions abroad are not considered part of remuneration, ergo – they do not constitute employee income. The NSA also shared (differently from the WSA) the claimant’s assertion that all expenses for accommodation, meals, and transport of posted employees are incurred solely in the employer’s interest – the organization of work execution belongs to the employer, including during the period and conditions of employee posting; only the employer’s economic interest lies in performing assignments abroad, not in the country of its registered office. The Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling cited by the Head of KAS and the WSA, dated July 8, 2014 (case ref. K 7/13), does not apply in this case – it concerned a situation where the employer’s free benefit was provided in the employee’s interest.

A Judgment Beneficial for All

The position of the Supreme Administrative Court frees the employer from the obligation to withhold and pay the employee’s income tax and the employee from tax liabilities in this regard. After this well-founded NSA judgment, employers can expect more favorable individual tax interpretations. The NSA ruling, as well as other rulings of administrative courts (e.g., NSA judgment of August 1, 2023, case ref. II FSK 270/2; NSA judgment of May 9, 2024, case ref. II FSK 1154/21; WSA ruling in Gliwice of February 6, 2024, case ref. I SA/GI 1025/23), create a strong argumentative basis in potential tax disputes. In case of any problems or doubts regarding similar disputes, we encourage you to contact our law firm.

 

 

Termination of an employment contract by mutual agreement is the least stressful way for an employee to end the employment relationship. In theory, it involves the consent of both parties to the contract regarding its termination and a conflict-free handling of the related matters. But what if we decide to withdraw from the effects of the submitted declaration of will?

What does the Labor Code say?

The regulations contained in the Labor Code do not provide for the possibility for the parties to withdraw from the effects of the contract termination notice. However, this does not mean that there are no possibilities to revoke one’s declaration of intent. As the literature shows, withdrawal from the legal effects of a declaration of will is only possible if the party can prove that it is affected by a defect. This issue is regulated in detail by the Civil Code – it distinguishes the following types of defects in declarations of will:

• lack of awareness or freedom in expressing will (Art. 82 of the Civil Code);
• simulativeness of the submitted declaration (Art. 83 of the Civil Code);
• error regarding the content of the legal act (Art. 84 of the Civil Code);
• fraud and threat (Art. 86–87 of the Civil Code).

The first condition allowing the declaration of will to be considered invalid is the lack of awareness or freedom in expressing will. In the context of employment relations, it is hard to find such a case. A situation excluding conscious and free will could be, for example, an employee’s intoxication during a company party. It is certain that acting under even strong nervousness or stress does not exclude conscious and free expression of will. Art. 82 of the Civil Code does not require the party invoking this defect to make an additional declaration of withdrawal from the effects of the declaration – invalidity occurs by operation of law.

The next case allowing withdrawal from the effects of will is acting under error. However, it cannot be just any error, but only a material error – it must be shown that without acting under that error, the party would not have decided to act. For example, an employee terminated a contract by mutual agreement, not knowing she was pregnant (and thus entitled to numerous rights). It can be assumed that if she had known about her condition, she would probably have continued working (see Supreme Court judgment of 19.03.2002, case ref. I PKN 156/01).

The last type of defects in the declaration of will is acting under unlawful threat. To classify an act as an unlawful threat, it is necessary to prove that the party had a justified fear that harm would be done to themselves or another person (not necessarily close to the employee), either personal or financial. An unlawful threat is not identical with criminal acts – it may also be so-called civil threats. Jurisprudence shows, however, that employees’ claims of contract termination under threat are often unsuccessful. As repeatedly emphasized by case law, an action threatened by a party that falls within the limits of its rights cannot be considered unlawful. There is extensive case law on this matter. For example: according to the Supreme Court, informing an employee by a supervisor about a negative assessment of the employee’s unauthorized actions and indicating possible legal consequences, including warning that the act may be grounds for immediate dismissal, is not an unlawful threat (case ref. I PR 106/82). It is also important to remember that an employee’s decision to terminate the contract by mutual agreement under pressure does not always mean acting under threat (see Supreme Court judgment of 5.06.2014, case ref. I PK 311/13). Each situation must be considered individually.

Summary

Termination of an employment contract by mutual agreement does not mean a definitive lack of possibility to withdraw from its effects. An employee or employer who wants to withdraw from a previously submitted declaration of will should consult a professional advisor to avoid unnecessary stress and potential additional costs.

 

 

For English

Why a Limited Liability Company (spółka z o.o.)?

The limited liability company is the most popular form of business activity in Poland. It’s no surprise. This business form allows limiting the entrepreneur’s personal liability (a shareholder is not liable with private assets), it can be established with a low financial outlay (the minimum share capital is just 5,000 PLN), and it enjoys greater prestige – such a business is perceived as more professional than a sole proprietorship. Another advantage is the possibility of setting up the company online, although this has some limitations.

The biggest advantage of a limited liability company is definitely the limitation of shareholders’ liability. Thanks to this, a shareholder does not have to worry about financial failure, because in case of bankruptcy, as a rule, they are not liable with their own assets. Exceptions apply to shareholders who are also members of the management board and who do not meet the requirements specified in the Commercial Companies Code.

Limited Liability Company as a Separate Taxpayer

All these advantages do not change the fact that a limited liability company is not tax transparent. What does that mean? The company earns a certain income and pays corporate income tax (CIT) on it. The money does not yet belong to the shareholder, but to the company. To enjoy the profit, the shareholder must first withdraw the profit from the company, e.g., in the form of a dividend, which also requires paying tax, this time not by the company but by the shareholder. This results in a kind of double taxation of the profit — first at the company level, then at the shareholder level. Generally, the company pays CIT at a rate of 19% or 9% (if it has the status of a small taxpayer). The 9% rate does not apply to income from shares in the profits of legal persons (for example, if a limited liability company is a shareholder of another limited liability company). Then, the shareholder pays income tax on the withdrawal of funds from the company (e.g., in the form of dividends, a 19% flat income tax applies).

For tax optimization purposes, shareholders choose different ways of withdrawing funds from a limited liability company.

Ways of Withdrawing Funds from a Limited Liability Company

1) Dividend

The most classic way of profit distribution. It involves the shareholders of the limited liability company adopting a resolution on profit distribution and allocating it for dividend payment. Additionally, before paying the dividend, the company’s financial statement must be approved. Dividends are taxed at a 19% PIT rate. This is the safest, although not always the most optimal, way to withdraw money from the company. There is also the possibility of paying advance dividends during the tax year. However, the payment of advances requires meeting additional conditions and is subject to lower limits. It is important that neither dividends nor advances constitute deductible expenses for the company (so the company pays CIT on a higher amount). Dividends are not subject to health or social insurance contributions.

2) Remuneration for Appointment

Another way to pay remuneration to a shareholder may be to grant remuneration for serving as a member of the management board. Of course, this requires that the shareholder also serves as a board member. Granting remuneration to a board member requires a shareholders’ resolution. This solution has an advantage over dividends in that the remuneration of the board member can be recognized as a deductible expense for the company, reducing the amount on which the company pays CIT. The remuneration is subject to a 9% health insurance contribution but is not subject to social insurance contributions.

Board member remuneration is taxed progressively — at 12% up to PLN 120,000 per year, and 32% above that threshold. A tax-free amount of PLN 30,000 applies.

3) Employment Contract

Shareholders often also decide to conclude an employment contract with the company. Such a contract has similar tax and social security consequences as remuneration for appointment. It is also taxed progressively — at 12% up to PLN 120,000 per year, and 32% beyond that. A tax-free amount of PLN 30,000 applies. The company can include this remuneration as a tax-deductible cost.

However, there is a difference in contributions compared to remuneration for appointment. Employment remuneration is subject to social security contributions. Therefore, this option is most often chosen by shareholders who also run sole proprietorships and have overlapping social insurance coverage. This arrangement generally allows paying social insurance contributions only on the employment contract with the company (often covering minimum wage to minimize the contribution base). However, it should be noted that concluding an employment contract with a company in which one is a shareholder always carries risks depending on the number of shares held and possible functions in the company’s management board. We recommend consulting an expert in this regard.

4) B2B Contract with the Company

A shareholder who also runs a sole proprietorship may decide to provide paid services to the company. The remuneration paid to the shareholder-service provider may be recognized as a tax-deductible expense for the company. On the shareholder’s side, the remuneration is taxed according to the taxation form of their business (general rules, lump sum, or linear tax). Depending on the type of services, VAT taxation may also apply (and the company may deduct the input VAT). Income from the services generally affects the entrepreneur’s health insurance contribution, although details depend on the selected taxation form. Additionally, the entrepreneur pays social insurance contributions under general rules.

This solution is not without risk, especially if the shareholder simultaneously serves on the company’s management board. An example of ineffective tax optimization in this respect are the popular “management contracts” among entrepreneurs, which involve providing management services under a business activity contract. Regardless of the chosen taxation form, these contracts are subject to tax on general rules, i.e., progressive scale. Before providing any services to a company where one is a shareholder, it is best to consult a specialist. Tax authorities carefully analyze this solution regarding avoidance of dividend taxation and often question the services provided as fictitious or overlapping with activities carried out as a board member. The terms of service (especially remuneration) should be set at market level since these are transactions between related parties.

5) Recurring Non-Cash Contributions by Shareholders

The last of the mentioned methods of withdrawing funds from the company to shareholders is based on Article 176 of the Commercial Companies Code, which gained popularity shortly after the introduction of the so-called Polish Deal tax reform. According to this provision, the company’s articles of association may impose on a shareholder the obligation to provide additional, recurring contributions to the company. These obligations should be specified in the articles of association, and their introduction requires the shareholder’s consent. Examples of such contributions may be providing tools or materials to the company, making equipment available, or providing specific services. The contribution must be recurring, i.e., the shareholder must provide it regularly and for remuneration (which is the point of this solution).

Income of the shareholder from recurring non-cash contributions is taxed progressively. This remuneration is not subject to social insurance contributions nor – unlike remuneration for serving as a board member – to health insurance contributions. A tax-free amount of PLN 30,000 applies. The company can include this remuneration as a tax-deductible expense.

The biggest advantage of this solution — exemption from health and social insurance contributions — is also its greatest risk. Unfortunately, more and more ZUS (social insurance authority) interpretations indicate alleged abuses in the use of recurring non-cash contributions, qualifying them as service contracts or contracts of mandate subject to contributions. Before deciding to use this solution, the type of contribution should be analyzed and it is best to consult a professional.

Summary

Above are the most common ways of withdrawing funds from a company, through which shareholders try to optimize their income tax-wise and contribution-wise. As you can see, there is a whole range of methods to plan profit extraction. Each involves a certain degree of risk but also a certain degree of benefit. Dividends, although the “default” form of payout, require the company to show profit and are subject to a “fixed” tax rate. Alternatives that provide greater tax benefits and do not require the company to show profit or formalities related to approving financial statements require taxpayers to exercise greater caution to avoid accusations of tax avoidance or non-market transactions between related parties. The most advantageous result often comes from combining several of the above methods, which however entails even greater diligence in case of tax authority inspections. To reduce risk and develop the best strategy in a given case, we recommend contacting the team of specialists at ATL LAW Anna Błaszak law firm, who will analyze the company’s situation and propose the most effective solution.

For English

Liability of Board Members of a Limited Liability Company

Members of the management board of a limited liability company may be held liable for the company’s obligations under Article 299 of the Commercial Companies Code. This liability is subsidiary. This means that a board member may be held liable if enforcement against the company proves ineffective. For the liability of a board member for the company’s debts, it is important whether the person sat on the company’s body at the time the obligation existed. In this context, an interesting legal dispute arose before the Provincial Administrative Court in Gdańsk. A board member of a limited liability company stated in the proceedings that in 2017 he submitted his resignation from the office in the company body. Therefore, he defended himself by arguing that he could not be held liable for the company’s obligations from 2018. On the other hand, the authority referred to data appearing in the National Court Register.

Factual Background

In the case, the company did not fully pay the tax liabilities due for 2018. The head of the tax office could not recover the overdue amounts from the company; therefore, he found the former board member liable for the tax liabilities. The authority indicated that the individual performed the function of a board member at that time and was therefore responsible for the outstanding amounts. The former board member appealed against this decision. He stated that since 2017 he has not held any function in the company’s board because he submitted his resignation. Furthermore, he argued that he is listed in the National Court Register only because the company’s president did not submit the appropriate application to remove him from the register. However, the authority maintained during the proceedings that, according to the data disclosed in the register, he continuously sat on the company’s body since 2016 and, contrary to his claim, he also held a position on the board during the period when the tax payment deadline for 2018 expired. Additionally, the tax office pointed out that after resignation, the former board member still performed active activities on behalf of the company, including, among others, entering into contracts and signing powers of attorney. Therefore, the authority found that these actions were not performed by him as an employee but as a board member, since these tasks belonged to the competencies of the management board. The former board member filed a complaint regarding this matter.

Court Decision

The dispute was taken up by the Provincial Administrative Court in Gdańsk. The court indicated that performing the function of a board member is based on the will of the person holding it. Therefore, a person sitting on the body may resign at any time. The court pointed out that authorities must always determine in such cases whether the resignation actually occurred. Therefore, in this case, it was necessary to examine whether the activities performed by the complainant fell within the scope of a board member’s duties. The court noted that the appointment and term of office of board members is an internal matter of the company’s business management. Meanwhile, the entry of a board member and changes in this regard in the National Court Register are declaratory in nature. As a result, the entry can be annulled in specific circumstances. Ultimately, the court overturned the authority’s decision in the case.

 

On January 1, 2025, changes to PKD codes came into effect

From the new year, a new Polish Classification of Activities (PKD) has been introduced. The changes in national regulations concerning codes used in statistics, accounting, and public registers were driven by the need to adjust the classification to the changing reality and current international and European standards. This primarily concerns the harmonization of economic statistics within the European Union. The updates in PKD are an important event for Polish entrepreneurship at the beginning of 2025. The changes raise some practical doubts among entrepreneurs, who ask themselves when and how they should adapt to the new classification. In this article, we will try to explain the most important issues related to the changes in PKD regulations.

First, it should be emphasized that the old PKD classification will still apply for two more years, i.e., until December 31, 2026. This will be a so-called transitional period, during which some entrepreneurs will use old codes, and some will use new ones. Therefore, there is no sudden revolution; changes will happen gradually. However, new PKD codes must be used by entrepreneurs who start their business in 2025. The changed codes will be used in the CEIDG, KRS, and REGON registers. Other entrepreneurs who operated their businesses before January 1, 2025, have two years to adapt to the new requirements.

During the transitional period, all entities registered in KRS that submit an application to change their business scope in this period will have to use the new PKD codes. This rule results from § 2, section 3 of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers dated December 18, 2024, on the Polish Classification of Activities (PKD). For entrepreneurs registered in CEIDG, the situation seems a bit less clear. In this case, the regulations use the phrase “application for change of entry.” It seems that, in practice, every application for a change of entry, regardless of whether it concerns the business scope, will trigger the obligation to use new PKD codes.

The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of December 18, 2024, also regulates issues concerning applications for changes in the register submitted in 2024 but processed or decided upon in the new year. Again, the regulations distinguish between entrepreneurs registered in KRS and those in CEIDG. For entities registered in KRS, the new PKD codes will apply to proceedings for entry or change of entry regarding the business scope initiated and not completed before the Regulation’s entry into force. However, for entrepreneurs registered in CEIDG, applications for entry submitted before the Regulation comes into effect will still be subject to the old PKD codes.

At this point, it is worth answering what happens if, during the transitional period, a KRS-registered entrepreneur does not change the business scope in the register, or a CEIDG-registered entrepreneur simply does not submit an application for change in the register. In such a case, entrepreneurs will not have to independently adjust their PKD codes. These entities will automatically receive a newly generated code based on the old one. This solution raises some doubts among many experts and lawyers regarding its accuracy and reliability. Therefore, many voices suggest that the safest solution will be to independently match PKD codes and make changes on their own.

Mobbing in the Workplace – Planned Amendments to the Labour Code

Mobbing is a negative phenomenon that can occur in the workplace. It is regulated by Article 94³ of the Polish Labour Code, which defines it as:
“actions or behaviours concerning an employee or directed against an employee, involving persistent and long-term harassment or intimidation of the employee, resulting in or intended to result in a lower self-assessment of their professional usefulness, humiliation or ridicule, isolation, or elimination from the team.”
This definition has remained unchanged for over 20 years. As a result, for some time now, there have been calls for its amendment. The Ministry of Labour has recently prepared a draft bill introducing changes to the provisions on mobbing. The draft (ref. no. UD183) is available on the website of the Government Legislation Centre.

The new definition proposes that mobbing constitutes behaviour involving persistent harassment of an employee. The persistence of harassment is characterised by its repetitive, ongoing, or recurring nature. The draft distinguishes certain behaviours that may indicate mobbing, including:

• humiliation or denigration,
• intimidation,
• undermining the employee’s professional usefulness,
• unjustified criticism, belittling or ridiculing the employee,
• hindering the employee’s functioning in the work environment in terms of achieving work results, performing duties, using their competencies, communicating with colleagues, or accessing necessary information,
• isolating the employee or excluding them from the team.

It is important to emphasize that the above list is open-ended. This means that mobbing may take other forms. However, the creation of an exemplary list appears intended to highlight behaviours particularly associated with this harmful phenomenon. Such behaviours may include physical, verbal, or non-verbal elements.
Notably, under the draft, mobbing will also include instructing or encouraging another person to engage in the abovementioned behaviours toward an employee. Furthermore, even unintentional behaviours that could have caused a specified effect—regardless of whether the effect actually occurred—may be deemed mobbing.

When assessing whether certain actions constitute mobbing, both the objective impact on the employee and the employee’s subjective feelings or reactions—provided they are rational—will be taken into account.

In addition to the changes to the concept of mobbing itself, the draft introduces new obligations for employers. According to the proposed new wording of Article 94 of the Labour Code, employers will be required to prevent all forms of unequal treatment and discrimination in employment, and to combat violations of dignity and other personal rights of employees, particularly in areas such as: health, personal sphere and reputation, proper communication in the workplace, position within the team, work results and evaluation, as well as professional status and qualifications.

At first glance, it is evident that the proposed changes are significant. The authors of the draft emphasize that over 20 years ago, the legislator defined certain forms of violence that may occur in the workplace. As a result, a review was conducted of how the phenomenon was originally defined and how the relevant doctrine and case law have developed since then. Based on this analysis, the drafters decided to clarify those aspects identified as causing confusion or practical difficulties in the interpretation and application of existing terms.

According to the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy, the draft amendment to the Labour Code is intended to resolve ongoing legal uncertainties and misperceptions concerning the true nature of workplace violence. The Ministry stresses that the draft reflects the most important conclusions of the judiciary and legal scholarship relating to the current legal provisions. The amendment is expected to improve the informative function of the law and help resolve existing ambiguities.

The legislative process is progressing rapidly, which means there is a strong possibility that the proposed amendments will be adopted later this year. This information is highly relevant for both employees and employers, who will need to adapt their workplaces to comply with the new regulations. We encourage you to familiarise yourself with the proposed changes to the Labour Code provisions on mobbing.