This article takes up topic rarely covered in Polish economic history i.e. compensations for nationalization and pre-IIWW debts to natural and legal persons from selected countries. During the 1948–1971 period Polish Government signed 12 bilateral indemnity agreements.

Based on these agreements Polish government transferred to the governments of foreign states lump-sum compensations to satisfy the claims of entities referred to above (exceptions: Norway – mutual compensation agreement offsetting claims, France – indemnization in the form of hard coal deliveries). Selection of these countries was done based on economic interests of Poland after IIWW (e.g. perspectives of export of hard coal). Historical source material for this article is note titled “Capitalist countries claims against Poland for pre-IIWW and IIWW debts as well as claims that arose out of Polish laws affecting foreign property after liberation.” Note is dated 19th March 1954 and was addressed to the Polish Minister of Finance. Document is kept in the Central Archives of Modern Records (AAN) in Warsaw, archival collection of the Ministry of Finance, Minister’s Office file, No 2/24.

It is difficult to speak of a historical dispute in the case of Greek compensation claims for losses suffered during WWII by Nazi Germany. This is because the German side has repeatedly taken responsibility for the harm done to the Greek people. Germany is also a country that has paid over 75 billion in damages by 2016 with various categories of victims from different countries, including Greece (Barcz & Kranz, 2019, p. 155). In the discourse on Greek demands against Germany, metaphors of the Cold War (Kalpouzos, 2015) or a symbolic battlefield (Christodoulakis, 2014, p. 20) appear, suggesting primarily a significant importance of this issue for internal political decisions made at the Acropolis and the local historical awareness. Despite this, since the “outbreak” of this “Cold War” in Germany, both on the political and expert’s levels, and primarily in historical research, many efforts have been made to constructively “resolve the dispute”. In author’s opinion, both terms coined during Greek-German historical controversy characterize duality of position of the contemporary states in discussion about impact of the past on current relations between nations in general. On the one hand, ‘Cold War’ term refers to political and economic levels (compensations demand) of the contemporary historical conflicts. On the other hand, ‘symbolic battlefield’ suggests moral superiority or righteousness on one side.

Gloss to the Judgment of the District Court in Kielce of August 25, 2022, file ref. no. IX Ka 715/22

The gloss aims to indicate the limits of freedom of expression, set by provisions on hate speech and destruction of property. These limits are indicated by the analyzed case where the property was damaged as a result of publicly displaying political posters. However, the court misinterpreted the law, leading to a conviction for an offense rather than a crime. There was also no obligation to redress the damage. The author discusses how there were generally no grounds for conviction and the accused should be acquitted for a different reason.

The issue of pursuance of claims connected with damage inflicted by defective administrative decision was regulated by section 160 of the Administrative Procedure Code (APC) until 1 September 2004. The section was the basis for pursuance of claim in connection with ascertaining invalidity of administrative decision or a decision issued with breach of the law. However, since 1 September 2004, i.e. after the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC) came into force, the basis for liability for damage caused by final administrative decision issued before 1 September 2004 – even if its invalidity or issuing with breach of law were established after that date – constitutes section 160 of the APC - but only in the aspect of determining the wrongful act or premisses of responsibility (clauses 1–3) and also prescription of claim (clause 6). It is not applicable to the procedure (mode) of pursuance of claim (clause 4&5). In the present law, regardless of the date of issue of decision, the appropriate and only way of pursuance of claim is a lawsuit in court. This means that the administrative mode has been excluded, regardless of the basis of responsibility arising from section 160 of the APC or section 417(clause 2) of the CPC. The range of responsibility for defective decision issued before 1 Sept 2004 has also been differentiated, since the party claiming damage can demand compensation for sustained losses and lost benefits on the basis of section 160 of the APC – if the damage was caused between 17 Oct 1997 and 31 Aug 2004. If the damage was caused before 17 Oct 1997, the party can only demand compensation for sustained losses.

The paper presents the results of the analysis of issues concerning the distribution in Poland. Distribution, in the context of the copyright law, is the compensation for the reproduction of works used with permit by private individuals for the personal purpose. Depending on the form of the exploitation of work or the subject of right (authors, performers, publishers or producers of phonograms and video recording), the fee should be paid. Fees for the use of protected works are collected from users based on the license agreements. Collective societies involved in the collect and division of the fees for the use of works within the permitted personal use. Article 23 of copyright law established the principle for unpaid permitted private use. There is no claim for payment of remuneration to the collective society or to users, if the works are copied within its own personal use. Exploitation of the works on the statutory license for private use is permitted, therefore, in connection with eg. common interests. Moreover, the relationships established through the internet are not excluded. Specificity is the fact that nowadays the reprographic fee of media is borne by entities that are themselves do not use of the works and do not encroach on the symptoms of copyright as an exclusive right. Holders of reprographic equipment, who are already established in the field of reproduction of works for personal use by third parties are obliged to pay, through the organization of collective management of copyright and related rights, duties amounting to 3% of the proceeds of this account on behalf of authors and publishers, unless the reproduction is carried out under an agreement with an eligible (eg. the author or publisher). Reprographic fees, so-called copyright levies or fees, which are counted towards to the blank media and copying machines are paid by all customers. Fees are paid by producers and importers of copying devices and blank media. In the field of reprographic fees, copyright is obsolete and should be complemented with modern audiovisual equipment, including tablets, smartphones etc.

German war reparations for World War II (Polish controversy)

German war reparations were imposed arbitrarily by the victorious powers, because no peace conference was convened. They were estimated at $20 million at the 1938 exchange rate, half of which went to the USSR (the Polish People’s Republic was to receive 15% of its pool). In addition, they were imported by the great powers themselves. Western powers abandoned their importation in the late 1940s, and the USSR, including the Polish People’s Republic, abandoned it in 1953. Both the Federal Republic of Germany and the four superpowers signed the so-called the two plus four agreement in 1990 considered the end of World War II. Poland received only part of the reparations due to it as part of Russian reparations. And so far, financial compensation from the Federal Republic of Germany has not satisfied her. During the PiS government, President Jarosław Kaczyński considered demands for such reparations to be a political issue aimed at weakening the international position of Germany, including the EU, and for his own election campaigns.