Mediation and conciliation, like arbitration, belong to alternative methods of dispute resolution, but they are more demanding as they assume the cooperation of the conflicting parties in reaching an agreement. In general, these methods can be used to resolve disputes in almost any area, but this paper only focuses on IPR disputes. This is for two reasons. First, it is an area where alternative methods are relatively rarely
used, at least in Poland, although they are promoted and recommended by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Perhaps the reason is the low awareness of such possibilities. Second, the planned amendment to the Polish Industrial Property Law Act introduces a new instrument — conciliation, so it is worth not only describing it, but also making a comparison with the already regulated mediation. It seems that the choice of the method of dispute
resolution made by the legislator is justified, because although the general term intellectual property law is used, the differences between copyright and intellectual property law are enormous. From the point of view of the subject of the study, the most important is the way in which protection is created, which also determines the freedom of the parties in the scope of out-of-court dispute resolution. Where a right is created or terminated by a decision of the Patent Office, there is less freedom. Conciliations with the participation of a specialist are to help the parties in a conflict resolution that takes these limitations
into account.

The EU Regulation 1215/2012, as well as the Polish civil procedural law regarding individual employment relationships are employee-interest oriented. The employee’s domicile is a specific form of privilege on the level of the national jurisdiction regulations establishing international competence of national courts. The domicile provides effective protection for the employee in case of a potential dispute with an employer,
who initiates the proceedings. Unfortunately, neither the Regulation 1215/2012 nor the Polish civil procedural law provides for equivalent protection for a third state employee (an employee from outside the EU) compared to an employee domiciled in Poland. The paper argues that despite a one-sided regulation, suing a third state employee before a Polish court is in principle impermissible. When applying the objective criterion to determine whether there is a national jurisdiction to hear the case, the court should
consider the need to protect the employee and his or her legitimate interests. The author posits that the employee’s interest constitutes a legal basis for assessing whether in the proceedings before a Polish court — as forum conveniens — it is possible to safeguard the rights of a weaker party of a particular legal relationship. If a choice of court agreement was concluded, suing a third state employee before a Polish court will not be possible. This is because the prorogation agreement is subject to Article 23 of the Regulation 1215/2012. This provision requires that for the prorogation of jurisdiction to be effective, the employee, as party to an agreement, must be domiciled in one of the Member States.

This paper delas with the selected issues of cross-border conversions of companies in private international law. Conversion is one of the forms of transformations of companies. The basic form of cross-border transformations mostly used by companies are mergers. However, as evidenced in particular by the judgment of the Court of Justice in the case of Polbud, also the change of the legal form is an institution of interest and present in the practice of cross-border activities of companies. In the foreground are the conflict of laws issues arising under private international law, in particular the question of the law applicable to the cross-border change of the company’s legal form. In order to answer this question, a definition of a conversion under the private international law has been provided. A cross-border conversion of a company must be distinguished from a cross-border transfer of the seat of the company as a connecting factor, as they are two completely different operations governed by different conflict-of-law rules of private international law. In the case of Polbud, there are serious doubts as to whether there was a cross-border conversion or cross-border transfer of the company’s seat. The law applicable to cross-border conversions is determined on the basis of the principle of combination or unification of the personal statutes of the state of the exit form and the state of the intended form of the company. Under this principle, however, the application of both legal systems is problematic. Useful guidelines are provided by the model expressed in art. 86c in connection with art. 86q of the directive on certain aspects of company law. The scope of application of the law applicable to cross-border conversions is determined by both leges societatis in question. Cross-border conversion operations also arise qualification problems related to issues such as the protection of creditors, minority shareholders and employees. The harmonized substantive provisions of the directive on certain aspects of company law make it easier to carry out cross-border conversions in the European dimension. The existence of such harmonized norms removes the barriers resulting from the applicable substantive law based on various principles and rules and makes the conflict-of-law issues then practically of secondary importance.

The article deals with the new Uruguayan act on private international law, i.e. the General Act on Private International Law n° 19.920 of the 17th of November 2020. The authors aim to analyse and assess its solutions, especially in the areas of matrimonial property relations, succession and legal entities, taking into account historical and comparative perspectives. The study presents the origins of the Act, its structure, main characteristics and ideas, and essential novelties introduced thereby. As for matrimonial property relations and succession, the authors focus on the question of the applicable law, while as for legal entities, also on the notion of the recognition of their legal personality. Within the comparative remarks, new Uruguayan provisions are explained against the background of Argentinian, Brazilian, Chilean, Colombian, Cuban, Dominican, Panamanian, Paraguayan, Peruvian and Venezuelan rules, as well as international multilateral conventions and European Union regulations.

This article addresses the issues related to heredamiento - an agreement as to succession, characteristic of the Catalan legal system (Spain), the centuries-long functioning of which may be an inspiration for other legislators. The paper first attempts to locate this institution in the context of history and terminology. Further, it explains and describes the functioning of heredamiento in the provisions of Catalan law currently in force. The article then discusses the centuries-old location of this institution at the junction of succession law and family law. The paper also presents issues relating to the conflict of laws rules of private international law and the conflict of law rules of interregional law that are characteristic of the Spanish legal system. Therefore, introducing the reader to the institution of heredamiento, the author suggests that the Polish legislator should not cease looking for legal instruments adjusted and adapted to social realities, which would adequately protect the interests of both future decedents and heirs.

The jurisdiction provided for in Article 13 of Regulation 650/2012 is ancillary to the jurisdiction regulated in Articles 4—11 of the Regulation. It covers only the declarations described in this provision. Their content is determined by the law applicable to succession. Jurisdiction under Article 13, on the other hand, does not cover the consequences of the silence of a candidate for an heir. The effects of the waiver of the succession are assessed according to the provisions of the law applicable to succession even if the waiver occurred within the jurisdiction of Article 13 of the Regulation. In the case before the CJEU, the Bremen court of succession held that since it had not been served with the original document containing the waiver of the succession with an official translation into German within the deadline set by the law application to succession (Section 1944(3) BGB), there had been no effective waiver of the succession. Responding to the preliminary questions of the German court of second instance, the CJEU correctly stated that in the case of waiver of the succession in the state, in which the waiving heir has his or her habitual residence, it is sufficient to comply with the form requirements provided for by the law of the state in which that declaration is made, without a necessity to comply with the requirements of the lex successionis. On the basis of legis processualis, the German court of succession could have requested that translation into German of the documents drawn up in Dutch is submitted. On the same basis, it could also have demanded the submission of the originals of the above documents. However, it incorrectly held that these acts must be completed within the time limit for waiver of succession provided for in the legis successionis. It is also clear that the failure of the heir waiving the succession to comply with the instruction contained in the last sentence of recital 32 of the Regulation (paragraph 74) regarding the obligation to give notice of waiver, does not render the waiver invalid. It seems desirable in future, however, to explicitly include in the Regulation the obligation to notify the court of succession of the waiver, in the country of habitual residence of the waiving heir.

The presented case study builds upon a fictious factual scenario involving transnational succession. It tells a story of Emilia — a national of a Member State who emigrates to another Member State, establishes a successful business and marries a national of that other State — also a women. She dies during COVID-19 pandemic and leaves an estate comprising immovables and other assets located in a number of states.
The case study touches upon various legal questions arising under Regulation 650/2012, Regulation 2016/1191, and the Hague Apostille Convention. It invites the trainers and students to consider concepts such as the place of habitual residence of the deceased, the European Succession Certificate and the national instruments certifying the inheritance, as well as the will and the donatio mortis causa. It asks questions relating to the formalities that are necessarily to complete a transnational succession. Notably, it lays out a problem whether a succession in a same-sex marriage — concluded validly in one Member State — should be accepted in another Member State that does not know such a concept in its domestic law.