In this Article the Author has analysed the most important issues arising from the interaction between intellectual property law, competition law and the right to redress, taking into account the cross-border character of the discussed matters. The cases of restraints of competition, having frequently a multinational character raise doubts as to both jurisdiction and applicable law. I believe that the EU’s legal act in this area are not well agreed. Perhaps after introducing the Directive no. 2014/104 the provisions of both Brussels I-bis and Rome II should be reconsidered, taking into account the specific character of delicts in the field of competition law. On one hand the wording of art. 6(3) of Rome II somewhat reconciles the interests of both EU-cases and non-EU cases, but the risk of applying the mosaic principle in the discussed cases seems inevitable. Perhaps for these matters the choice of law should be considered. For example the parties could have the possibility to choose the law of one of the affected markets (both of an EU-country or non-EU country, since art. 3 Rome II provides for an universal character of the regulation). When in comes to jurisdiction it is left to the courts to interpret the notion of both place of act and place of its consequences, which seems to be a propersolution. In this way we can apply a case-by-case method.

The European Union holds no competence to enact substantive family law, however is entitled to exercise competences in the field of private international law sensu largo (rules on conflict-of-laws and international civil procedure). In the treaties this branch of law is referred to as “measures of judicial cooperation in civil matters” (Art. 81 TFEU). Such a cooperation not generally interfere with the fundamental legal principles of the forum (member state). One of the classic solutions, included in the general part of this branch of law, is the public policy clause (orde public clause, Vorbehaltsklausel). Despite of the limited scope of European Union’s competences, the recent development of European law raises issues related to the juridical expression of the identity of marriage. The presented detailed study of some recent legislative procedures shows that it could be otherwise. The possible affecting the understanding and identity of marriage in a Member State by EU Regulations No 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 are subject to the article. Arguments presented inter alia by the Polish parliament and governments in recent years during the legislative processes aiming to adopt the discussed regulations at the EU level, have to be supported. It seems, that the abovementioned remarks concerning the consequences of the regulations on matrimonial property matters and registered partnerships, which were subject to enhanced cooperation in several member states, could be also important for these states. Some of them can be not aware of all future practical consequences of the discussed new EU regulations. In particular the attention shall be paid to the practical effect of “importing” of foreign legal concepts and judgments, that govern the institutionalization of couples. Secondly, what can be astonishing, foreign law governing the details of contract applies not only within parties to contract but also with third parties in above mentioned situations, where the couple is not habitually resident abroad. The greatest concerns are raised by provisions, that — despite the lack of EU’s competences in field of family law — in practice not only amend private international law, but also cause unwelcome changes to substantive rules governing marriage (including rules perceived as fundamental ones in the state — e.g. marriage perceived in a common scope as the union between one man and one woman). The measures of judicial cooperation in civil matters should not result in obligation to recognize foreign redefined legal concept of marriage, because this would mean circumventing of the conferred powers principle (Art. 4 of Treaty on European Union). The motto of the European Union: In varietate concordia (United in diversity) is also worth recalling. Its essence should generally argue for a more cautious approach by the EU institutions and groups of scientists interfering with substantial family law matters of Members States.

One of the features of so called “art cases” is that the solutions are rarely black and white, therefore conventional remedies such as damages are often not adequate. Choosing alternative methods, widely recommended by international organizations, permits parties to reach creative non monetary solutions. The article aims at discussing how non-judicial methods are used in art cases and whether they are better for solving art related disputes. The first part of this article describes the methods that are used in particular cases, the formation of ADR clauses and also refers to the institutional rules of conduct. The second part lists the arguments for using ADR methods in art cases.

The article is devoted to an analysis of EU regulation 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 in matters of matrimonial property regimes. It starts with a description of perturbations that emerged during the preparation of the regulation and led to the need for proceeding by way of enhanced cooperation. This part of the paper presents the official position adopted by Poland towards the regulation. The section that follows discusses the notion of matrimonial property regime within the meaning used in the regulation. In doing so, it addresses the issue of doubts accompanying the qualification of the obligation to participate in satisfying family needs and donations inter vivos between spouses. This is followed by presentation and evaluation of solutions adopted within the framework of particular conflict rules. Special attention in this regard is paid to the issue of the choice of law’s effect over time. With respect to the rules that determine applicable law in the event of absence of a choice of law, the article concentrates on a solution consisting in petrification of applicable law and the possibility of breaking it. The final part is devoted to the scope of application of the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime. Here, the solution concerning the material validity of matrimonial property agreement and the effects of the matrimonial property regime on a legal relationship between a spouse and third parties is evaluated.

The notion of arbitrability, which has not been defined in international treaties and has been given various meanings in international literature covers the question whether the subject-matter of the dispute submitted to arbitration is one that can be resolved by arbitration. In Polish literature, arbitrability is defined in a similar manner, as a feature of the dispute (case) that makes it capable of being resolved by the arbitration tribunal, i.e. it falls under the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal as a consequence of concluding an arbitration agreement. Despite certain doubts concerning specific issues, the division of subjective rights into economic and non-economic rights is widely adopted in the Polish doctrine and it covers two categories of rights: personality rights, i.e. rights protecting personal interests, as far as immaterial rights protecting the right holder’s personal interests, and non-economic family rights. The relative nature of arbitration always causes trouble when the case may concern rights of a third party. Traditionally, most disputes resolved through arbitration are cases of a contractual nature. As a result of the ‘commercialisation of personal goods’, it is nowadays also possible that the contractual dispute may concern the infringement of these goods. An example of this can be found from the provision of Article 4.7.2 sec. 2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, which gives the aggrieved party in a case of non-performance of the contract, the right to damages covering non-pecuniary harm, which includes, for instance, physical suffering or emotional distress. In spite of the fact that the tendency to cover immaterial harm within the frame of contractual liability has spread since the first edition of the UNIDROIT Principles 1994), including in European private law, most cases concerning an infringement of a personal right are still tortious by nature. The solution taken by Polish lawmaker in Article 1157 KPC concerning arbitrability of disputes is rather unnecessarily complicated. The ostensibly unambiguous wording of that article does not suffice the requirement of legal certainty.