The boundary between freedom of expression and the protection of personal rights has for years been one of the most challenging issues in contemporary civil law. In the era of social media, review platforms, and widespread access to the Internet, the conflict between the right to express opinions and the right to protect one’s reputation has become increasingly visible. A perfect example is the high-profile case concerning the ZnanyLekarz.pl portal, in which the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, in its judgment of 20 March 2025, confirmed the liability of the platform’s administrator for the infringement of a doctor’s personal rights through the publication of an offensive user comment.

The case resonated widely not only within the medical community but also in the legal sector, as it touches upon fundamental issues related to the liability of online platforms for content posted by users. At the same time, it demonstrates how thin the line is between permissible criticism and the unlawful violation of good reputation.

The doctor affected by the disputed comment decided to bring an action after an opinion appeared on her profile describing a visit that—according to her—never took place. The post suggested improper conduct by the doctor, which could undermine her professionalism and patients’ trust. Before taking the matter to court, the doctor requested that the portal remove the comment, pointing out its untrue and harmful nature. The administrator refused, arguing that it was not obliged to verify the truthfulness of user-posted opinions and merely acted as an intermediary.

The Regional Court in Warsaw did not accept this argument. In the reasoning of its judgment, the court stated that once a portal receives a notification about the potentially unlawful nature of content, it has an obligation to take action—either to remove the entry or to verify its accuracy. Failure to respond amounts to acceptance of the infringement and leads to civil liability. The court awarded the doctor compensation in the amount of PLN 10,000, finding that her personal rights—particularly her good name and professional reputation—had been violated.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw fully upheld this ruling. It indicated that the administrator of a portal that enables the publication of opinions about medical professionals cannot evade liability for content posted by users, especially once it has been informed of its potential untruthfulness. The court emphasized that review platforms play an important social role, but at the same time must act with due diligence so as not to allow infringements of the personal rights of individuals concerned by the published content.

This case clearly illustrates that freedom of expression—although fundamental—is not absolute. Every statement, especially in the public sphere, must remain within the limits set by law, and one of the most important limitations is the protection of the personal rights of others. Criticism, even harsh criticism, is permissible provided it is based on facts and does not lead to the dissemination of false information. Otherwise, it becomes an unlawful infringement of the right to a good name.

The legal basis for the protection of personal rights is Article 24 of the Polish Civil Code, which provides for the possibility to demand cessation of infringements, removal of their effects, publication of an appropriate statement, as well as the award of monetary compensation or payment of an appropriate sum for a social purpose. If the infringement of personal rights results in pecuniary damage, the injured party may seek compensation under general principles. In practice, this means that a person whose reputation has been harmed by the publication of false information has a wide range of legal remedies at their disposal.

It is worth emphasizing that liability for the infringement of personal rights may rest not only with the author of the post, but also with the portal administrator if they fail to respond to notifications concerning unlawful content. This is an important signal for all online platforms that provide space for publishing opinions—failure to react to a report of an infringement may lead to civil liability.

Summary

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw in the ZnanyLekarz.pl case constitutes an important reference point for judicial practice concerning the protection of personal rights on the Internet. It shows that portal administrators cannot shift all responsibility onto users and must take action when notified of infringements. At the same time, it serves as a reminder that freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to disseminate false information that may harm the reputation of others.

If your good name has been violated, do not remain passive. You may demand the removal of the entry, an apology, and—if necessary—take the matter to court and seek compensation. The protection of personal rights is real and effective, and properly undertaken actions can help restore the disturbed balance and defend your reputation in the public sphere.

We invite you to contact us!
The AJ LAW Team

What is mediation?

Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process in which the parties to a conflict—often with the help of a neutral mediator—seek a solution that is satisfactory for both sides.
The goal of mediation is not to determine “winners” and “losers,” but to reach an agreement that allows the dispute to be resolved more quickly, cost-effectively, and collaboratively.

The solutions that allow parties to reach an agreement—and that we often use—are frequently surprising. They require a complete departure from conventional legal thinking. Even choices like the location or other circumstances can help achieve an unprecedented consensus. This demands great creativity and openness of mind from lawyers. Mediation and negotiation are not courtroom processes simply moved elsewhere. They can genuinely take place in unconventional settings, guided by informality, openness to the other person, a willingness to find a solution, and curiosity about what the other side has to say. An agreement will not be reached if we insist on having our way at all costs or believe that only our perspective is correct. Achieving a good and beneficial agreement in mediation requires attentiveness and sensitivity—arrogance and overconfidence can be detrimental.

In what types of cases can mediation be conducted?

AJ LAW offers mediation services in both judicial and extrajudicial matters, helping parties resolve disputes without the need to initiate court proceedings. We handle mediations in commercial, civil, intellectual property, personal rights, and employment cases, providing neutral support in communication between parties to achieve mutually beneficial agreements while maintaining confidentiality and discretion throughout the mediation process. We also provide business negotiation services, supporting clients in contract negotiations, commercial agreements, and business deals. We represent their interests in discussions with partners, suppliers, or contractors and develop negotiation strategies tailored to the client’s goals and industry specifics, while maintaining strong business relationships. Within organizations, we facilitate conflict resolution—conducting mediations between employees and management, resolving internal disputes, fostering dialogue among team members to improve workplace atmosphere, and supporting the negotiation of employment terms and handling difficult company situations. We assist with financial mediations and negotiations, resolving disputes related to financial obligations, debts, and claims. We conduct mediations concerning settlements between contractors, business partners, or clients, and negotiate repayment terms and financial restructuring plans. In the area of intellectual property, we handle mediations and negotiations in patent disputes, licensing agreement negotiations, mediations involving copyright infringements, and trademark protection. We also manage mediations and negotiations in cases of unfair competition, including disputes over unfair market practices, confidentiality agreements, competition violations, misleading advertising, and compensation claims. Additionally, we provide mediation and negotiation support in the life sciences and healthcare sectors, resolving conflicts in clinical trials between sponsors and institutions, negotiating R&D collaboration agreements, conducting mediations in product liability disputes, and handling patent negotiations in the pharmaceutical and therapy accessibility sectors. In high-risk or crisis situations, we assist in negotiations with key business partners, developing tactics to minimize losses and resolve business crises. We also prepare clients for mediation and negotiation by providing legal consultations, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of their position, assessing potential dispute resolution scenarios, and advising on mediation and negotiation rules and their legal consequences. Key advantages of mediation and negotiation highlighted by AJ LAW include faster and less costly dispute resolution compared to court proceedings, the ability to maintain positive relationships between parties after the conflict, flexibility in tailoring solutions to the parties’ needs, and greater control over the outcome compared to judicial decisions. AJ LAW offers professional support at every stage of mediation and negotiation, helping clients achieve favorable and satisfactory solutions in both business and personal matters, and invites clients to utilize its services.

Mediation Day!

It is worth adding that Attorney Joanna Uchańska, Partner at AJ LAW, is a court mediator at the District Courts in Warsaw, Kraków, Katowice, Poznań, Lublin, and Gdańsk.

W tym tygodniu obchodzony jest Międzynarodowy Tydzień Mediacji. Jeśli chcesz dowiedzieć się, czy Twój spór może zostać rozwiązany w drodze mediacji, lub potrzebujesz wsparcia w jej przeprowadzeniu — zapraszamy do kontaktu z zespołem AJ LAW.
Wierzymy, że prawo może łączyć, a nie dzielić — a mediacja to jedno z najskuteczniejszych narzędzi w tym procesie.

We wish everyone successful mediation processes and favorable settlements.

The case that sparked the discussion

The limited liability company “N.” sued an individual who had published a negative online review of its business activities related to the sale of heat pumps. The company argued that the post violated its personal rights, particularly its reputation and good name. In the lawsuit, it sought, among other things, the removal of the review, an apology, and compensation in the amount of PLN 22,000. The court of first instance partially granted the claims but reduced the compensation to PLN 5,000.

The court of second instance, while examining the appeal, referred a legal question to the Supreme Court: can a legal entity effectively claim compensation for the infringement of personal rights under Article 448 § 1 of the Civil Code in connection with Article 43 of the Civil Code

What does the Civil Code say?

According to Article 43 of the Civil Code, the provisions on the protection of personal rights of natural persons apply accordingly to legal entities. This means that legal entities may invoke the protection provided in Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code, which includes, among other things, demanding that violations cease, requiring the removal of their consequences, and seeking compensation.

The issue arises with Article 448 of the Civil Code, which provides for the possibility of awarding monetary compensation for harm suffered. Critics of applying this provision to legal entities argue that such entities do not experience psychological suffering, and therefore the concept of “harm” cannot be understood in the classical sense.

Supreme Court resolution: compensation also for legal entities

The Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that a legal entity can claim monetary compensation for the infringement of personal rights. In its reasoning, it emphasized that “harm” in the case of a legal entity does not mean emotional suffering, but rather a non-material loss that hinders or prevents the proper conduct of its business activities.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the personal rights of legal entities are non-material values that enable them to operate in accordance with their business objectives. These may include, among others, the company name, trade name, reputation, the right to conduct business without interference, or the ability to communicate with their environment. The violation of these rights can lead to loss of trust, damage to reputation, or undermining of credibility.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court’s resolution was issued after the amendment to the Civil Code on July 28, 2023 (Journal of Laws 2023, item 1615), which modified the content of Article 448 of the Civil Code. The provision was divided into three paragraphs, clarifying the conditions for awarding compensation. Despite these changes, the Supreme Court held that the new wording does not exclude the application of Article 448 to legal entities.

What does this mean for practice?

The Supreme Court’s resolution is highly significant for business practice. Entrepreneurs, foundations, associations, and other legal entities can effectively claim compensation for the infringement of their personal rights—for example, in cases of defamatory publications, false online reviews, or the unlawful use of their name.

The Supreme Court emphasized, however, that awarding compensation should be preceded by a thorough analysis of the case circumstances. Important factors include the type of infringed right, the extent of the violation, the nature of the legal entity’s activities, and the impact of the infringement on its operations.

Changes in enforcement proceedings

The Supreme Court emphasized that, when resolving the legal issue, it also took into account the effects that the amendment to Article 1050 of the Civil Code, effective from April 15, 2023, had on the protection of personal rights. This article regulates the enforcement of actions that the debtor cannot delegate. The application of Article 1050 § 4 of the Civil Procedure Code may significantly limit the effective protection of personal rights through non-material remedies indicated in Article 24 § 1 of the Civil Code. The way a court-mandated statement is published in the appropriate form may be modified during the enforcement proceedings. In specific cases, this could result in the consequences of the violation of personal rights not being fully reversed, or only being reversed to a limited extent, despite judicial protection. According to the Supreme Court, effective protection of the personal rights of legal entities—especially those not conducting business activities—when carried out solely through non-material remedies and the monetary remedies provided in Article 24 § 2 of the Civil Code, could sometimes be merely illusory.

Summary

The Supreme Court resolution of October 3, 2023, confirms that legal entities can utilize the full range of remedies for the protection of personal rights, including monetary compensation. This is an important step toward ensuring a balance between protecting the reputation of business entities and freedom of expression. In the internet era, where a single review can damage a company’s image, the ability to claim compensation becomes a practical tool for defense. Awarding monetary compensation to a legal entity is not intended to provide satisfaction or to compensate for physical or psychological suffering, but rather to protect the objectively understood interests related to its personal rights.

Any questions? Feel free to contact us at adiskau@ajlaw.pl or office@ajlaw.pl

Family ties constitute one of the most important forms of interpersonal relationships, providing individuals with stability, a sense of security, and mutual support—both in material and non-material aspects. In social sciences, they are treated as a special type of social bond, and in civil law, they are increasingly considered in the context of personal goods. Although the concept of family ties is not explicitly listed in the catalog of Article 23 of the Civil Code, judicial practice, especially in recent years, increasingly recognizes their status as a personal good.

The Nature of Family Ties

Family ties encompass the actual relationships between family members, based on emotional, cultural, and functional structures. Each of these dimensions defines a specific scope of obligations. Material ties are reflected in family and civil law institutions—such as the duty of maintenance, marital property community, or management of a child’s assets. In contrast, emotional ties, although more difficult to define, are equally significant—they remain individualized and are only partially subject to legal regulation.

The foundation of family ties is the conscious and free will of family members, especially spouses, from which also arises a spiritual bond based on mutual respect and affection. In this context, family ties become a non-material value deserving legal protection.

Family Ties in Case Law

The recognition of family ties as a personal good raises controversy in legal doctrine. On one hand, their interpersonal nature is emphasized, which makes their objectification and legal protection difficult. On the other hand, the case law of common courts and the Supreme Court increasingly recognizes their status as a personal good.

One of the first rulings that explicitly recognized family ties as a personal good was the judgment of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on September 23, 2005 (I ACa 554/05), which stated that the special bond between parents and a child deserves protection under Article 24 § 1 of the Civil Code. In subsequent years, courts have developed this line of jurisprudence, indicating, among other things, the right to family life as a personal good (Warsaw Court of Appeal, I ACa 385/15; Łódź Court of Appeal, I ACa 956/15; Białystok Court of Appeal, I ACa 250/15; Katowice Court of Appeal, V ACa 379/15).

In its judgment of January 14, 2010, the Supreme Court recognized family life as an independent personal good, and in the judgment of August 9, 2016 (II CSK 719/15), it clarified that family ties must take the form of real, strong, and lasting emotional bonds that can be objectively verified. They cannot be equated merely with feelings of attachment.

Axiological Justification for Protection

The recognition of family ties as a personal good has a strong axiological justification. Family, relationships with close ones, and especially the bond between children and parents, hold a high position in the hierarchy of social values. The need for closeness and belonging is an inherent human trait, and its violation can lead to profound emotional harm.

In its resolution of March 23, 2018, the Supreme Court indicated that maintaining bonds with closest persons is a value inseparably connected with human nature. In the judgment of January 12, 2021 (III CSKP 11/21), it was recognized that the severance of family ties can be a source of harm for the closest persons, who are directly affected by the causative event—e.g., as a result of the death or serious injury of a close person.

Family Ties and Divorce

A particular case of the severance of family ties is divorce. The dissolution of marriage leads to a loss of stability, sense of security, trust, and acceptance—for both spouses and children. Although divorce law does not provide for compensation for the severance of family ties, the need to protect this value in the context of the emotional and social consequences of divorce is increasingly emphasized.

Violation of the Right to Family Life through Online Publications

According to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, every person has the right to respect for their private and family life, home, and correspondence. The Strasbourg Court interprets these concepts broadly—family life includes not only traditional marital and parental relationships, but also partnerships, grandparent-grandchild relationships, and sibling bonds. The state has both negative obligations (non-interference) and positive obligations (protection against interference by third parties, e.g., the media).

Polish press law (Art. 14(6)) prohibits the publication of information from a person’s private life without their consent, unless the information is directly related to that person’s public activity. Otherwise, the publication may be considered an unlawful interference with personal goods, including family life. Courts emphasize that even public and well-known figures have a right to privacy, and the public interest does not justify every intrusion. For example, the Warsaw Court of Appeal ordered apologies to actress Joanna Brodzik for publishing photos suggesting she was intoxicated—although she was a public figure, the publication violated her dignity and privacy. In one court ruling, it was noted that the press publication infringed not only on privacy but also on the right to a peaceful family life and a happy marriage. Such violations may result in compensation for moral harm.

Freedom of expression (Art. 10 of the ECHR) is not absolute. It must be balanced with the right to privacy and family life. Journalists have a duty to exercise particular care and diligence—publications must be socially justified and must not exceed the limits necessary to achieve the informational purpose.

Summary

Although family ties are not explicitly listed in the catalog of Article 23 of the Civil Code, they deserve recognition as a personal good. Their protection stems not only from case law but also from the axiological foundations of civil and constitutional law. As social relations develop and perceptions of values evolve, the catalog of personal goods changes—and family ties, as a value fundamental to human identity, should receive full legal protection. The right to family life deserves broad and strong protection and extends also to recognizable, well-known, or public individuals, including in relation to freedom of speech.

Do you have any questions? Please contact: adiskau@ajlaw.pl or office@ajlaw.pl

[1] https://www.coe.int/pl/web/echr-toolkit/le-droit-au-respect-de-la-vie-privee-et-familiale

[2] Prawo do publikacji informacji o działalności osób publicznych a ochrona prywatności – Wydanie – 9-10/2011 | Palestra; Naruszenie prywatności w publikacji prasowej (wyrok VI ACa 775/15)

What are entrepreneurs’ personal rights?

Entrepreneurs’ personal rights are non-material values that are crucial for a company’s operations and its position in the market. According to Article 23 of the Polish Civil Code, personal rights include, among others: health, freedom, dignity, name, image, and the secrecy of correspondence. In the context of entrepreneurs, this list also includes:

• The good name and reputation of the company – essential for building trust among clients and business partners.
• The company name – protected against unlawful use by competitors.
• Trade secrets – covering confidential information related to the company’s operations.
• Trademarks and other identifiers of the company – protected against unfair competition.

The protection of entrepreneurs’ personal rights is based on Article 43 of the Polish Civil Code, which states that the provisions concerning the protection of personal rights of natural persons also apply to legal persons.

Legal basis for mediation in civil cases

Mediation in civil cases, including those concerning the protection of entrepreneurs’ personal rights, is regulated by the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (KPC). According to Article 183¹ of the KPC, mediation may be conducted either on the basis of an agreement between the parties or by referral from the court. For entrepreneurs, mediation can serve as a valuable tool to resolve conflicts without the need for lengthy court proceedings.

Additionally, mediation is supported by the Act on Out-of-Court Consumer Dispute Resolution and the provisions concerning the protection of personal rights contained in the Civil Code (CC). Mediation can be an effective tool for pursuing claims related to the violation of a company’s reputation, name, or trade secrets.

Course of Mediation

Mediation consists of several stages:

1. Contacting the mediator – the parties express their willingness to mediate, agree on the terms, and select a mediator.
2. Preliminary meeting – the mediator meets with the parties, explains the rules of mediation, and outlines the process.
3. Negotiations – the parties present their positions, and the mediator assists in working out a compromise.
4. Conclusion of a settlement – if the parties reach an agreement, a settlement is drafted, which may be approved by the court.

Role of the Mediator

The mediator is a neutral party who helps the participants reach an agreement. They do not make decisions but support the parties in their negotiations. A mediator must be a person with full legal capacity and listed on the register of mediators maintained by regional courts. The mediator is required to maintain impartiality and confidentiality.

Significance of the Settlement

A settlement reached through mediation has legal force and can be approved by the court. Once approved, the settlement becomes enforceable, meaning that if it is not fulfilled, claims can be pursued through enforcement proceedings.

Examples of Case Law

In Polish case law, there are examples where mediation could have played a significant role in protecting entrepreneurs’ personal rights. One such case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Białystok (Case No. I ACa 439/2013), which concerned the violation of an entrepreneur’s good name through the publication of false information in the media. The court emphasized that violating an entrepreneur’s personal rights may result in the obligation to issue a public apology and provide compensation. This case illustrates how mediation could have offered a less confrontational and more efficient path to resolution, potentially avoiding a lengthy court process.

Another important ruling is the resolution of the Supreme Court of October 3, 2023 (Case No. III CZP 22/23), in which the Court held that a legal person may claim compensation for non-material harm under Article 448 of the Civil Code. This decision confirms that entrepreneurs can effectively seek protection of their personal rights in the event of a violation, including the right to claim non-pecuniary damages for harm suffered.

Summary

Mediation in cases concerning the protection of entrepreneurs’ personal rights is an effective tool that enables quick, efficient, and less costly conflict resolution. Thanks to legal regulations and court rulings, mediation is becoming an increasingly popular method of dispute resolution, allowing entrepreneurs to protect their reputation and good name without the need for lengthy court proceedings.

At the same time, Prosecutor General Prof. Adam Bodnar, Ph.D., published detailed guidelines on conducting proceedings in cases of bias-motivated crimes. Here is the link to the Guidelines:

www.gov.pl/web/prokuratura-krajowa/wytyczne-prokuratora-generalnego-w-zakresie-prowadzenia-postepowan-o-przestepstwa-motywowane-uprzedzeniami

This document defines bias-motivated crimes as acts directed against individuals or their property, stemming from their actual or perceived affiliation with specific social groups. It indicates that characteristics such as race, nationality, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, or physical or mental disability may serve as grounds for such actions.

The guidelines emphasize the exceptional harm caused by bias-motivated crimes. From an individual perspective, such acts negatively impact the mental health of victims, often leading to post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or even suicidal thoughts. Moreover, these crimes destabilize the sense of security for individuals and entire communities, resulting in social exclusion and growing fears about the future of vulnerable groups. On a societal level, they reinforce prejudice, worsen the public image of vulnerable groups, and contribute to their dehumanization.

According to the guidelines, proceedings in cases of bias-motivated crimes should be conducted by specially designated prosecutors with appropriate substantive training. During victim interviews, particular care should be taken to respect their dignity and avoid actions that could lead to secondary victimization. An important element of these guidelines is also the use of preferred forms of address for transgender and non-binary individuals to ensure their comfort during the proceedings.

The analysis of the perpetrator’s motivation should take into account the broader context of the act, including symbols used during the crime, the location and timing of the incident, as well as the perpetrator’s statements before, during, and after the act. The characteristics of the victims are also important—especially individuals who are particularly visible within the community, such as minority group leaders. Additionally, the traits of the perpetrators should be considered, including potential links to radical organizations or previous instances of committing similar offenses.

Court proceedings concerning such matters should be conducted by the same prosecutors who handled the preparatory proceedings, in order to ensure continuity of actions and the effectiveness of prosecution. The guidelines emphasize that even in the form of an inquiry, every decision concluding the proceedings should be justified in a way that is understandable to people outside the legal community. If necessary, prosecutors should refer to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as to international documents.

Bias-motivated crimes pose a particular challenge for the prosecution service, which must act in an organized and effective manner, ensuring protection for victims and supporting the development of a society free from discrimination and prejudice.

The new guidelines emphasize the necessity of:

• ensuring a high level of professionalism in conducted proceedings,
• respecting the dignity and rights of victims during criminal proceedings,
• eliminating instances of secondary victimization,
• drafting decisions with reasoning that is understandable to individuals without legal education,
• taking into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union,
• using modern technologies to detect and document hate crimes.

Practical changes in the conduct of proceedings:

The guidelines specify detailed rules for conducting procedural actions, including:

• precise documentation of the perpetrator’s actions and motives,
• application of standardized evidentiary standards,
• conducting proceedings in a way that minimizes the burden on victims,
• cooperation between the prosecution and social organizations,
• undertaking preventive measures aimed at preventing further crimes.

Additionally, prosecutors will be required to:

• informing social organizations that initiated preparatory proceedings about their discontinuation by sending a copy of the final decision,
• undertaking non-criminal actions, such as issuing warnings and notifications that may have a preventive effect on perpetrators and society,
• taking into account electronic evidence and modern technologies in the course of proceedings.

Strengthening prosecutors’ competencies:

One of the key elements of the new guidelines is the aim to increase the specialization of prosecutors in the area of bias-motivated crimes. To achieve this, the following measures are planned:

• regular training for designated prosecutors,
• cooperation with organizations involved in countering hate speech,
• development of a methodological handbook for prosecutors conducting proceedings.

The guidelines dated March 5, 2025, received a positive opinion from the National Council of Prosecutors at the Prosecutor General’s Office. This can therefore be seen as a step toward building a systemic strategy for combating hate crimes and hate speech.

If you have any questions regarding hate speech, have been harmed by such a crime, need related information, or if your personal rights have been violated, I am available at: adiskau@ajlaw.pl.

The definition of an act of unfair competition can be found in Article 3(1) of the Act of April 16, 1993, on Combating Unfair Competition (u.z.n.k.). According to this provision, an act of unfair competition is any action contrary to the law or good practices that threatens or infringes upon the interests of another entrepreneur or customer. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Act, an act of unfair competition includes the dissemination of false or misleading information about oneself, another entrepreneur, or a company, with the intent to gain an advantage or cause harm. This particularly concerns false or misleading information regarding:

• the persons managing the enterprise,
• the goods produced or services provided,
• the prices applied,
• the economic or legal situation.

The cited provision contains an open-ended list of information that, when false or misleading, is disseminated to gain an advantage or cause harm to an entrepreneur. Consequently, any false or misleading information (provided it is disseminated with the intent to gain an advantage or cause harm) meets the criteria set out in Article 14 of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition.

Importantly, case law emphasizes that causing harm or gaining an advantage does not have to be the direct aim of the perpetrator’s actions. According to the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal dated July 6, 2018 (case no. VII Aga 341/18, SIP Legalis no. 1822166): “The scope of application of Article 14 of the Act of April 16, 1993, on Combating Unfair Competition (consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2018, item 419, as amended) includes not only acts committed with direct intent, but also situations where the perpetrator merely accepted the consequences of their actions, and causing harm or gaining an advantage was not their direct objective, as the action was actually directed towards something else.”

Thus, an example of the described act of unfair competition would include, among others, spreading false information among business partners about the financial condition and solvency of another entrepreneur with the aim of gaining a financial advantage by taking over cooperation with those partners and thereby depriving the other entrepreneur of part of their clientele. Another example would be disseminating false information about the quality of products or services provided, particularly informing partners negatively about the properties of products offered by a competing entrepreneur without any supporting research or analysis, with the intention of harming the competitor. An act of unfair competition would also include spreading false information about oneself, for example by using unauthorized titles or unreliable research and analysis results, in order to increase the attractiveness of one’s offer and thereby strengthen competitiveness in the market.

Violation of the entrepreneur’s good reputation vs. violation of their personal rights

The dissemination of false information about a business very often involves harming its good reputation and established market position — which, in turn, leads to a violation of its personal rights.

Among the catalogue of personal rights of legal persons, good reputation is especially included. In turn, the good reputation of a legal person is connected with the opinion held about it by others due to the scope of its activities (Supreme Court ruling of June 9, 2005, III CK 622/04).

The concept of good reputation is closely linked to the notion of a company’s renown. This, in turn, is understood as the totality of positive perceptions and evaluations by consumers regarding the company’s products (Court of Appeal in Warsaw ruling of December 19, 1995, I ACr 1013/95). Violation of this personal right may occur through false statements that attribute improper conduct to the company or cause a loss of trust in the company. For example, in its ruling of November 14, 1986 (II CR 295/86), the Supreme Court recognized that a business operating a higher education institution can only achieve its educational goals if it possesses the appropriate educational and moral authority.

In turn, in the judgment of January 13, 2012 (I CSK 790/10), the Supreme Court indicated that the violation of an entrepreneur’s personal rights may also occur through the dissemination of false information or derogatory assessments of the entrepreneur’s employees.

Protection of the entrepreneur – what measures?

Article 26 of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition (uznk) establishes two offenses: the dissemination of false or misleading information with the intent to harm an entrepreneur (defamation) and the dissemination of such information to achieve material or personal gain (unfair promotion).

The provisions of Article 26 of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition (uznk) provide for penalties of arrest or fines. The arrest penalty is imposed for a period ranging from 5 to 30 days. The fine is monetary, ranging from 20 to 5,000 PLN. The specific penalty depends on the circumstances of the case, including, in the case of a fine, the financial situation of the offender.

In the case of overlap with the provisions of the Penal Code, the perpetrator must take into account the possibility of a prison sentence of up to one year (in situations where defamatory information was disseminated through mass media). Moreover, a conviction for such an offense results in a criminal record entry, which in many cases can pose a significant problem.

An entrepreneur who has been subjected to an act of unfair competition is also entitled to appropriate legal remedies provided in Article 18(1) of the Act. These include claims for:

• cessation of unlawful activities,
• removal of the effects of these actions,
• submission of a specific statement,
• reparation of the damage caused,
• return of unjustly obtained benefits, as well as,
• payment of an appropriate sum of money for a specified social purpose, if the act of unfair competition was committed with fault.

These claims are subject to a statute of limitations of three years, and the limitation period begins separately for each violation (Article 20(1) of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition), which is worth remembering when considering taking action.

Do you have any questions? Have your personal rights as an entrepreneur been violated? Have false statements been spread about your business?

Feel free to contact us!

Attorney Aleksandra Diskau adiskau@ajlaw.pl

The business vs. the entrepreneur

To begin with, it is worth noting that the term “enterprise” (przedsiębiorstwo), according to the Civil Code, refers to an organized set of intangible and tangible components intended for conducting business activities. In this sense, the personal rights of the enterprise itself cannot be violated. However, it is entirely possible for the personal rights of the entrepreneur, a legal entity, or an organizational unit—which, although not a legal entity, is granted legal capacity (i.e., the ability to hold rights and obligations)—to be infringed.

Personal rights of the enterprise

The concept of an enterprise should be understood broadly, meaning that both a single-member limited liability company and an international corporation qualify as an enterprise. As a consequence of guaranteeing and protecting the principle of economic freedom, enterprises are granted subjective rights aimed at protecting the conduct of business activities. Among these subjective rights are personal rights, which the Polish legislator grants special protection because they represent socially recognized values considered essential, even decisive for the existence of a given entity. Protection of personal rights for legal persons and organizational units that are not legal persons but are granted legal capacity by law (so-called “imperfect legal persons,” e.g., a registered partnership) is provided by Article 43 of the Civil Code. According to this provision, regulations concerning the protection of personal rights of natural persons apply accordingly to legal persons. Legal persons benefit from protection of personal rights as laid out for natural persons because, given the similar nature and scope of protected values, it was unnecessary to duplicate the provisions.

Personal rights do not have a legal (statutory) definition; however, the legislator has provided several examples concerning natural persons that may indicate potentially protected values. Accordingly, for enterprises, protected personal rights may include, for example:

• freedom, 

• image (reputation) 

• confidentiality of correspondence, 

• inviolability of premises, 

• scientific, inventive, and innovative creativity.

The essence of personal rights lies in their open catalog, which means there is no exhaustive list of protected values. As a rule, protection is granted to socially accepted goods—those whose violation will almost always meet with ostracism and opposition. However, nothing prevents new types of values, which may develop due to technological progress and social changes, from being granted protection.

The Supreme Court aptly stated that the concept of a personal good should be related to the current level of technological and civilizational development, accepted moral and legal principles in society, and the existing types of social, economic, or even political relations. Furthermore, the notion of infringement of a particular personal good is dynamic over time and depends on specific environments. Consequently, the assessment of whether a personal good has been violated cannot be based solely on the individual measure of the injured party; it must take into account not only the subjective feelings of the claimant but also the objective reaction of society’s opinion.

Personal rights are non-material in nature; they cannot be expressed in economic terms and, consequently, cannot be valued financially. However, their violation may have financial repercussions for the injured party, causing damage and costs related to its remedy. Some personal rights can be commercialized—that is, their exploitation can generate profits for the entitled person or others, for example, by endorsing products with their name. Moreover, personal rights are inalienable, meaning one cannot renounce the right to protect their good name or privacy. It is only possible to refrain from enforcing these rights, but completely relinquishing them is impossible.

In the following part of the article, three specific examples of personal rights will be discussed, such as:

• trade secrets,

• identifying marks,

• goodwill of the company,

and also the consequences of their violation. It is worth noting in passing that for natural persons conducting business activity, the rules relating to the protection of personal rights of individuals will apply. However, due to the general nature of personal rights, the considerations regarding enterprises (legal persons and so-called incomplete legal persons) will also be relevant for individual entrepreneurs.

Trade secret

The concept of a trade secret is defined in Article 11(2) of the Act of April 16, 1993, on Combating Unfair Competition, according to which, a trade secret is understood as technical, technological, or organizational information of an enterprise, or other information having economic value, which, as a whole or in a specific combination and collection of its elements, is not generally known to persons who usually deal with this type of information or is not easily accessible to such persons, provided that the party entitled to use or dispose of the information has taken, with due diligence, measures to maintain its confidentiality.

The breach of a trade secret (its use or disclosure) constitutes an act of unfair competition.

Name, identifying signs

Every business has signs that distinguish it from other entities operating in the market. Primarily, this includes the name (which is the equivalent of a person’s first and last name), as well as the logo, trademarks used by the entrepreneur, other identifying marks, and the names of the products it offers.

In this context, it is worth noting the Act of 30 June 2000 – Industrial Property Law. According to the definition contained in this act, a trademark may be any sign that can be represented graphically, provided that such a sign is capable of distinguishing the goods of one enterprise from those of another. In particular, this refers to elements such as a word, drawing, ornament, color composition, three-dimensional form (including the shape of the product or its packaging), as well as a melody or other sound signal. According to the currently binding regulations, trademark protection is granted by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland. Trademark protection is also regulated at the level of the European Union. The protection of trademarks is ensured through their registration.

Violations of personal rights in this area most often involve the use of someone else’s names, logos, or logotypes, or those that are deceptively similar.

 Good name (reputation, goodwill) of the company

Every entrepreneur knows very well how important an impeccable reputation of their company is. Building a good name takes years and often requires a great deal of effort. For this reason, everyone strives to ensure that no one undermines the trust in the business they run.

The loss of a company’s good name cannot be directly translated into monetary terms, although in certain situations it may have financial consequences. In this context, it is worth noting the judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 June 2005 (case no. III CK 622/04), in which it was stated that the good name of a legal entity is associated with the opinion held about it by others, due to the scope of its responsibilities. This includes not only the reputation resulting from the entity’s past activities, but also the presumed (anticipated) reputation from the moment of its establishment.

A violation of an entrepreneur’s good name may, in practice, consist of spreading negative opinions about the entrepreneur or the goods or services they offer, making unfounded accusations, or other statements that damage the company’s reputation.Such actions may take various forms, including comments published on the Internet.

In some cases, a negative opinion about an employee, a member of the management board, or a partner in a company may significantly affect the reputation of the company itself.

Consequences of Infringement of Personal Rights – Legal Remedies

Enterprises are entitled to the same rights to protect their personal rights as natural persons. In the event of a threat to a personal right, in order to protect its interests, a company whose personal right is endangered may demand that the infringing action be ceased—unless the action is not unlawful. To this end, the company may file a claim with the competent court requesting the cessation of specific actions.

In a situation where a personal right has already been violated, the entitled party may demand that the person responsible for the violation take actions necessary to eliminate its consequences—particularly by issuing a statement of appropriate content and form, such as an apology or a correction of information. Although a legal entity does not experience emotions such as harm, and an apology does not directly affect its well-being, such actions do influence how the entity is perceived by third parties. They are also genuinely felt by the members of its governing bodies and individuals associated with the entity. The company may also seek monetary compensation for non-material harm or request payment of an appropriate sum to a designated social cause. Additionally, it may demand compensation for damages caused by the violation, including reimbursement of incurred costs and losses.

  Do you have any questions? Have your personal rights as an entrepreneur been violated?

Feel free to contact us!

Attorney Aleksandra Diskau adiskau@ajlaw.pl

Such behavior is known as “online hate.”

“Hejt” is a Polish term derived from the English word “hate,” which means nothing other than hatred. There are many definitions of hate speech; generally speaking, hate can be defined as an offensive and often aggressive online comment or expressing oneself in a hostile and aggressive manner about a topic, person, or social group. However, hate does not necessarily have to take the form of an online comment; it can also be, for example, an offensive image, meme, or video. Hate is often vulgar, crosses the boundaries of constructive criticism, and exceeds the limits of polite expression.

When publishing any information online—especially on social media platforms—that even indirectly concerns other people, it is worth considering whether it infringes on someone else’s good name. It should also be added that spreading even true information can lead to a lawsuit for the violation of personal rights.

According to the Civil Code (Article 23), personal rights include “in particular health, freedom, honor, freedom of conscience, name or pseudonym, image, secrecy of correspondence, inviolability of the home, scientific, artistic, inventive, and rationalizing creativity.” These are the most important non-property rights belonging to every person, which are protected by civil law. Every individual is guaranteed protection of their personal rights.

Personal rights violated by hate speech include dignity and good name for individuals, and reputation for legal entities. In both cases, these rights are protected. Both individuals and legal entities have the guaranteed right not to be subjected to judgments that could unjustly expose them to the loss of good name, reputation, or trust necessary for the smooth functioning of their activities.

When initiating civil proceedings with a claim for the protection of personal rights, the person affected by the violation can primarily seek to cease the infringement by removing the unlawful post published on the website.

Besides demanding the removal of the violation of personal rights, it is also possible to request that the responsible party take actions aimed at removing the consequences of the infringement. Under this entitlement, one can, in particular, demand:

• submission of a statement with appropriate content and in the proper form – under this claim, one can demand the correction of false accusations or information published on the portal, as well as an apology for the violation of good name or reputation. Such statements may be published on the website where the violation occurred;
• monetary compensation or payment of an appropriate sum of money to a designated social cause;
• payment of damages in cases where the violation of personal rights has caused financial harm to the recipient of the hate speech.

With the development of the Internet and social media, more and more of our activities, including professional ones, are moving online. Consequently, an increasing number of legal disputes over the violation of personal rights concern posts, statements, and videos published on various forums and profiles on Instagram, Facebook, or YouTube. It is important to remember that the Internet today is gradually replacing traditional media such as television and newspapers. Unfortunately, some people still believe they are “anonymous” online, which makes it easy for them to insult others, expecting to remain unpunished. In response to the growth of social media and online activity, the Polish legislator has also begun working on amending regulations regarding the protection of personal rights.

Draft amendment of the regulations – the so-called Blind Lawsuit

The Sejm has just begun work on the so-called “blind lawsuits” bill. On the table is also a much broader draft aimed at combating online hate speech.

In short, the proposed regulations allow for filing a lawsuit for the violation of personal rights even when the plaintiff does not know the defendant’s information. Currently, such a lawsuit is subject to dismissal. When filing a so-called blind lawsuit, the obligation to obtain the defendant’s data falls on the court, which will have to request this information from internet service providers or telecommunications companies.

The main goal of the proposed regulations is to provide faster and more effective protection for individuals whose personal rights have been violated as a result of actions taken in the digital space, especially on online platforms. This draft complements the mechanisms set out in the provisions of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), introduced to combat illegal content by intermediary service providers.

Thus, instead of a single new separate procedure, there could be as many as three proceedings concerning violations related to the dissemination of illegal content:

– against individuals with a known identity,

– against individuals with an unidentified identity,

– against intermediary service providers.

So, we are left to wait for the outcome of the legislative work and the changes in this area! And let’s not forget — we are not anonymous on the Internet. It’s also important to remember that legal remedies to fight hate speech are already available to us.