Warsaw, July 20^th, 2018

THE UNION OF ENTREPRENEURS AND EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE LIQUIDATION
OF THE FLAT TAX RATE CONCERNING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Already mid-May this year, when the idea of liquidation of the flat tax for entrepreneurs and the actual introduction of the 3^rd tax threshold was publicly presented, the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers expressed a very critical opinion on this issue, pointing, among others, to the fact that the tax will strike financially above all the still fledgling middle class. Today, we have a ready-made draft bill that must be judged even more harshly – it assumes increasing tax burdens not only for wealthier citizens, but for all those employed, thus contributing to the increase of the tax wedge in Poland.

The presented draft bill comprises of three key elements. First of all, the Solidarity Support Fund for Disabled People (Solidarnościowy Fundusz Wsparcia Osób Niepełnosprawnych) is to be created. It is virtually impossible not to notice that the legislator therefore decides to clone the State Fund for Rehabilitation of Disabled People (Państwowy Fundusz Rehabilitacji Osób Niepełnosprawnych – PFRON) – albeit under a different name. Even the activities, which the Fund’s resources will be allocated for, are alike – they concern, among other things, execution of “tasks in the field of social and vocational support for disabled people” (the PFRON Act includes the execution of tasks “in the field of occupational and social rehabilitation of disabled people carried out by foundations and non-governmental organizations”) or “programs co-financed from European Union funds for people disabled people” (PFRON Act: “programs planned for implementation in a given year, supported from European Union aid funds for people with disabilities”).

Thus, the authors of the draft bill propose to actually double an already existing institution. They do so in a situation in which the functioning of certain elements of the system built around PFRON requires far-reaching adjustments (e.g. the issue of “trading” on payment reductions, which the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers ZPP already elaborated on in a separate document). It is necessary to point out at this point that there is a lack of systemic logic. When it is still necessary to reform the rules and regulations of operation of one fund, another one is established, designed for practically the very same purpose. We believe that from the point of view of the quality of state institutions, as well as the effectiveness of their activities, such fragmentation and duplication of entities do not serve any purpose, it is point-blank harmful – therefore, the legislator should refrain from doing so.

The real problem, which should be addressed with absolute certainty, appears, however, not at the stage of creating the new fund, but when the legislator describes the system of its financing. As far as taxes are concerned, namely a new tax threshold and liquidation of flat rate income tax for entrepreneurs – the arguments against this solution have already been stated. The introduction of this concept will be economically damaging, and it also stands in radical violation of election promises (government representatives would repeatedly state that they did not intend to introduce new taxes, and that they would be able to finance their social projects thanks to tightening the tax system and allocating resources more reasonably, not increasing fiscal burdens). What has been proposed in the draft bill is now way beyond this framework.

It is postulated that the resources of the Fund should come not only from revenue from the new tax –it is clearly stated in Art. 3 that the Fund’s revenues are “compulsory contributions to the Fund”. In accordance with Art. 4, persons subject to pension insurance (with exceptions listed in the draft bill) are compulsorily obliged to contribute. To put it in straightforward terms – the draft bill proposes to increase the compulsory taxation of all wages, at least from the minimum wage up (if the salary comes from different sources, then it is added up), with regard to people employed on the basis of any contract. In practice, this means that employees, who already earns net only slightly more than 50% of the expenses actually incurred by the employer, will receive even less. Even if they only earn the minimum wage. Socially, this is an extremely harmful idea.

The Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers has long indicated that one of the biggest problems of the tax system in Poland (and more broadly – the system of all public levies) is the fact that salaries and wages are drastically taxed, in particular the lowest ones. Even the proposal of a new tax system, developed by the circles close to ZPP, primarily assumed a radical reduction in labour taxation. People’s affluence and wealth come from natural resources, capital, and work. We are unable to change the state of having natural resources to a significant extent by means of peaceful methods, nor do we have accumulated capital, because throughout the last several centuries, we have only had short periods of independence and free entrepreneurship in Poland. The conclusion can only be one – if we want to catch up with more affluent countries, we must focus on work.

How is the work of Poles to generate wealth, since such a large part of its financial reward in the form of remuneration is simply taken away by the state? The proposal to increase the burden on remuneration is a curious oddity – the tax wedge in Poland is already at the level of the OECD average (and the organisation brings together highly developed countries whose citizens are in many cases much more affluent than Poles). Why does the government want the level of these burdens to further increase? Wages began to grow more dynamically (Central Statistical Office of Poland GUS figures speak for themselves), and another way (following the fuel fee) was found for Poles to benefit from the economic prosperity to a lesser extent than they could.

Apart from the issue of a fair and effective distribution of the tax burden, the next question is also relevant: to what extent will the new contribution additionally burden the remuneration of Poles? It is scandalous that there is nothing about this in the draft bill. According to Art. 4 sec. 2, the amount of the contribution to the Fund is specified in the budget act. Therefore, we are dealing here with an unprecedented situation – not only that the legislator postulates the introduction of an additional levy, they also do not specify its amount in the draft. Regulations in this form would mean that the government can manipulate the amount of the contribution year to year. It is a fatal proposal and one violating a number of constitutional principles.

Apart from the obvious issues, such as the principle of legal security or trust in the state, it is worth considering Art. 217 of the Polish Constitution and the principle of regulating public levies and their structural elements resulting from it exclusively and completely in an act. According to the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal, it is clear from the provision of the Constitution that all the essential elements of the “tribute ratio” should be regulated directly in an act. This means that in relation to these “essential elements’ (which certainly include the tax rate or the amount of the premium), one cannot use delegation to issue a regulation. Is the legislator, while not wanting to determine the amount of the tax directly in the act, trying to find a way out of the situation, transferring the amount of the contribution to be paid to the budget act, and not a ministerial regulation?

It might seem at that time that the requirement to determine the essential elements of the tax ratio is respected; however, the budget act is of a special nature, and the mechanism proposed by the authors of the draft bill means the breakdown of the regulations of essential construction elements into two legal acts, one of which is additionally of rotating character. There is also no doubt that the intention expressed in the provision was that the legislator could not leave in the act regulating the tribute any “free room” to determine the rate or the object of taxation in a separate act, and this certainly will happen if the bill is adopted in the present form.

At the same time, one ought to make note of double (sic!) false narrative surrounding the project. On the occasion of presenting the tax concept, government representatives in an untrue way claimed that they were not raising taxes. The fact that this was a lie was already known back then. At the same time, however, it was being said – in an extremely populist tone – that additional support for disabled people with the help of a new tribute would only burden the “richest” of Poles. It can now be said that the public was then misled for the second time – the draft bill explicitly states that everyone should contribute to the new Fund, not only those whom the government considers to be “the wealthiest”.

To sum up, we consider the draft bill to be a terrible attempt to increase the fiscal burden on remuneration and income from economic activity in Poland, which is directly contrary to the economic interest of our country, as well as in contradiction with the announcements of the government. At the same time, we draw attention to the scandalous form of the regulation regarding contributions to the new Fund – one cannot accept a draft in which the amount thereof is not directly specified and which refers to the budget act. We postulate withdrawal from this harmful project and to start a proper debate: both concerning the rational support of people with disabilities and with regard to the construction of a fair and effective tax system in Poland.

The Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers

Warsaw, July 31^st, 2018

 

An appeal to the government of the Republic of Poland regarding the maintenance of the upper limit for the basis of social security contributions
(the thirty-fold rule)

 

Taking into consideration:

• the controversy caused by the proceedings of the Act of December 15^th, 2017 amending the Act on the social security system and other acts abolishing the thirty-fold rule,
• the dismissal by the Constitutional Tribunal of the hearing on the examination of the compliance of the Act with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the still unknown date of the recognition of the application of the President of the Republic of Poland,
• the uncertainty regarding the legal status, and subsequent legislative initiatives increasing the costs of employers’ activities, limiting the possibilities of new investments by entrepreneurs,,
• the goals of the government’s Responsible Development Strategy, which assume the creation of high-quality and highly-paid jobs in our country,
• the increased in labour costs of high-class specialists, which reduce our country’s attractiveness as a place to create innovative jobs,
• the lack of initiatives that increase the attractiveness of employment contracts in relation to other forms of employment,
• the finalisation of budgets preparation by entrepreneurs for the year 2019.

we postulate that the government commits to maintain the upper limit of the basis for social security contributions, at least until the year 2020, and to engage in argumentative talks with social partners.

 

The appeal has been signed by:

• Konfederacja Lewiatan – Polish Confederation Lewiatan
• Pracodawcy RP – Employers of Poland
• Business Centre Club
• Związek Rzemiosła Polskiego – Polish Craft Association
• Związek Przedsiębiorców i Pracodawców – Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers
• Polski Związek Pracodawców Przemysłu Farmaceutycznego – Polish Association of Pharmaceutical Employers
• Polska Rada Centrów Handlowych – Polish Council of Shopping Centers
• Związek Pracodawców Technologii Cyfrowych Lewiatan – Digital Technology Employers Lewiatan
• Związek Pracodawców Firm Produkcyjnych – Association of Employers of Production Companies
• Transport i Logistyka Polska – Transport and Logistics Poland
• Polskie Forum HR – Polish HR Forum
• Związek Pracodawców Prywatnych Mediów – Association of Private Media Employers
• Związek Pracodawców Motoryzacji i Artykułów Przemysłowych – Association of Employers of Automotive and Industrial Goods
• Izba Gospodarki Elektronicznej – Chamber of Digital Economy
• Związek Pracodawców Sektora Kosmicznego – Polish Space Industry Association
• Polska Organizacja Handlu i Dystrybucji – Polish Organisation for Trade and Distribution
• Federacja Przedsiębiorców Polskich – Federation of Polish Entrepreneurs
• Związek Pracodawców Branży Infrastruktury – Association of Infrastructure Industry Employers
• Polskie Stowarzyszenie Sprzedaży Bezpośredniej – Polish Direct Sales Association
• Związek Pracodawców Branżowych – Association of Industry Employers
• Polska Izba Gospodarcza Czystości – Polish Cleaning Chamber of Commerce
• IAB Polska – IAB Poland
• Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji – Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications
• Związek Przedsiębiorców Przemysłu Mody Lewiatan – Association of Fashion Industry Entrepreneurs Lewiatan
• Rada Podatkowa Lewiatan – Tax Council Lewiatan
• Polski Związek Przemysłu Kosmetycznego – Polish Association of Cosmetics Industry
• Związek Pracodawców Producentów Materiałów dla Budownictwa – Building Materials Manufacturers Employers Association
• Związek Pracodawców Hoteli, Restauracji i Cateringu – Association of Employers HoReCa
• Polska Unia Szpitali Specjalistycznych – Polish Union of Specialist Hospitals
• Związek Pracodawców Prywatnych Energetyki – Association of Private Energy Employers
• ABSL – Association of Business Service Leaders
• Stowarzyszenie Energii Odnawialnej – Renewable Energy Association
• Stowarzyszenie na rzecz systemów ociepleń – Association for Thermal Insulation Systems
• STRATERA MED

 

The appeal together with the list of signing parties was sent to Mateusz Morawiecki, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland, and Elżbieta Rafalska, Minister of Labour and Social Policy, President of the Social Dialogue Council.

The list of signing parties is still open and we encourage other organisations to join the initiative.
More information

Organisations that would like to express their support for the appeal are asked to contact Maciej Drozd: mdrozd@konfederacjalewiatan.pl.

Warsaw, 17^th July 2018

 

POSITION OF THE UNION OF ENTREPRENEURS AND EMPLOYERS ON THE DRAFT ACT ON THE
LABOUR MARKET OF 29^TH JUNE 2018

The Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers has repeatedly highlighted the necessity to introduce far-reaching changes in the rules and regulations of employing foreigners in Poland. This need stems from at least two factors – the first being the current deficit of people of working age which presents an undesirable situation for entrepreneurs, i.e. lack of hands to work. The shortage of qualified employees at the moment is one of the major obstacles to the development of companies – including those from the SME sector. The second aspect that needs to be considered is the fatal demographic situation of Poland in the long run. This problem is already manifested by the above-mentioned deficits on the market, but within several dozen years, it will take on a much more serious dimension.

A small number of working people will have a negative impact on the condition of the state budget, it will have a fatal influence on the pace of the country’s economic development and may ultimately lead to the collapse of the pension system. That is why it is vital to supplement the shortages that have already been created during the many years when the fertility rate in Poland did not ensure a simple replacement of generations.

An important element of the plan to prevent the long-term effects of this demographic disaster must of course begin with a wise and properly targeted pro-family policy that rewards having more than two children. The resulting “gap” cannot be supplemented, however, only with new births – according to available estimates, to maintain the pace of economic development, by 2050 we will need at least 5 million economic migrants. Immigration is currently a very touchy topic in Europe due to the so-called immigration crisis caused by an unreasonable “open door” policy for all visitors from the Middle East and Africa. As a result, a large part of Western European countries has brought about a situation in which their spending on social benefits regularly increases to horrendous proportions, while they do not receive an appropriate added value in return. Poland, being a country still economically catching up with the broadly understood West, should learn from the mistakes of its wealthier partners. Thus, we must not duplicate the immigration policy of Germany or France. We should benefit from the large resources of employees willing to take up employment in Poland from culturally approximate countries, or those who, as ethnic groups, during their many years of residency in the country undertook economic activity, and worked in a broader, statistically valid sense, while not generating neither criminal problems nor excessive social spending (e.g. the Vietnamese).

The rules and regulations of employing foreigners in Poland constitute a very important element of immigration policy in the economic context. The Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers has repeatedly advocated simplifying and liberalising the rules of employment of foreigners in Poland. Thus, we generally consider the draft law on the labour market as a step in the right direction. At the same time, we stress the fact that the proposed solutions are still insufficient, and it is necessary to undertake bolder actions.

Strong support should be given to the requirement that the work of a foreigner without a permit, on the basis of a declaration of intention to perform work for a foreigner, should be possible not for six months within a 12-month-long period, as is currently the case, but for 12 months within an 18-month-long period. Consequently, foreigners from selected countries (mainly from Ukraine) will have the opportunity to work in Poland for a whole year with a subsequent six-month break. In general, we acknowledge the system of declarations of intent to entrust work to a foreigner as optimal (although already to some extent complicated by recent changes –the earlier system was simpler and more informal), therefore a proposal to extend the time when a foreigner can work on the basis thereof, we definitely support, although we believe that a forced break from work on the basis of the statement makes no sense and one ought to have the possibility to continually prolong the declarations.

At the same time, a few changes to the system of declarations are introduced that require clarification. For example, Art. 298 sec. 8 of the Act granting the staroste (poviat authority) the right to issue a decision on the annulment of the entry of the statement on entrusting work to a foreigner in the record of statements, including “if the Polish employer does not conduct activities justifying the entrustment of work to a foreigner”. Admittedly, the premise is further specified by indicating that it is “in particular” a situation in which the employer does not conduct business, statutory or agricultural activity or its activity is in liquidation or suspension period. The catalogue mentioned by the legislator is not closed, however, and there is a risk of an expanded interpretation of this provision, in which the staroste could state that the Polish employer does not conduct any activity justifying the entrustment of work to a foreigner and make the entry of the statement in the register null and void. It would therefore be worth making the catalogue referred to in Art. 298 sec. 8 point 2, a closed catalogue of premises whereby the staroste could issue a decision on cancellation of the entry of the declaration to the register.

At the same time, we draw attention to the provisions facilitating citizens of culturally approximate countries their settlement in Poland. While the postulate itself should be commended, because we ultimately want economic immigrants, who are willing to take up jobs and contribute to the Polish economy, to stay in our country for a longer time, we do have serious doubts concerning the limiting those facilitations to people “possessing qualifications in professions desired for the Polish economy”. Bureaucratic determination of “professions desired for the Polish economy” will never keep up with the market or reflect its real, contemporary needs. Therefore, while we are definitely in favour of facilitations, we postulate the resignation from the criterion of having qualifications in some specific professions. From behind an official desk, it will never be possible to accurately diagnose employees of which professions and how many of them exactly does the Polish economy need at any given moment, especially that in the current realities and at the current pace of technological progress this can change very rapidly.

At the same time, we wish to point out that the draft bill did not address a number of our demands, which were raised often on the occasion of previous discussions regarding the issue of employing foreigners in Poland. Among others, not ascribing declarations and work permits to a specific employer, so that the documents would constitute entitlement to work on the territory of the Republic of Poland and not the fact of being assigned to a specific entity. This way, we will enable immigrants to adapt to the rapidly changing realities of the labour market.

To summarise, the presented draft bill is definitely a step in the right direction, albeit an insufficient one and in a few aspects deficiently precise. We postulate further works be undertaken concerning this project and that our comments presented in the official position above be taken into account.

Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers

 

fot. 13on / on lic. Unsplash

Warsaw, 5^th July 2018

5POSITION OF THE UNION OF ENTREPRENEURS AND EMPLOYERS ON THE TERMINATION OF THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

As long as politicians accuse each other, as long as they maintain that it is them and not the other party who have an idea for Poland, and who convince to the solutions they propose – atypical and radical as they may be – we are witness to a normal discourse that does not significantly diverge from the standards adopted in other countries in the world.

There are, however, some dimensions of the functioning of the state, which due to the raison d’etat should be removed from the rules of a brutal political dispute, within which it is allowed to do and say almost everything.

One of these dimensions is the judiciary, which in the state of law performs at least two roles. First, it serves the peaceful resolution of disputes, and secondly – as part of the classical division of power – protects citizens from the legislative and, most importantly, executive power, especially in a system, in which these two authorities penetrate each other.

For this reason, the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers criticises the shortening of the term of office of the First President of the Supreme Court, which is discordant with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, which seems to many people an institution terribly distant from the life of an average person, has a strictly defined scope of competence. Both in the old Act of 23^rd November 2002 and in the new Act of 8^th December 2017, these competences include the administration of justice by supervising the legality of the judgments of common and military courts. Within these competences, the Supreme Court has settled many legal disputes vital from the point of view of various social groups in matters concerning everyday life of average citizens. In recent years, after the political changes that took place in 2015, by virtue of the resolution of 22^nd June 2017, the Court confirmed the permissibility of disposing of agricultural property to a relative, even before the end of the 10-year period since its acquisition. On 25^th August 2017, it adopted a resolution that the right to separate ownership of premises located in a building located on real estate, for which perpetual usufruct right has been established, does not expire upon the expiry of the period for which such right was established. This year, the Court stated that when assessing whether a given contractual term is allowed, one should take into account the state at the time of conclusion of the contract, without the need to investigate whether any damages resulted from the use of an unlawful clause – which is essential from the point of view of Swiss franc borrowers. Therefore, the Supreme Court should be considered an institution that is of paramount important to the Polish economic system. Henceforth, one cannot refrain from reacting when the principles of functioning of the Supreme Court provided in the Constitution are violated, because it raises serious concerns as to whether the next step will be interference with its jurisdiction.

According to Art. 183 sec. 3 of the Constitution, the First President of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland for a six-year term from amongst the candidates presented by the General Assembly of the Judges of the Supreme Court. The duration of the term of office of the First President is therefore explicitly stated in the Constitution. Article 180 sec. 1 of the Constitution also states that the judges are not removable. It is impossible not to notice that the theoretical gate to circumvent this provision is sec. 4 of the same article, according to which an act defines the age limit, after which the judges retire. Therefore, a judge cannot be removed theoretically, but it is possible – by means of an ordinary act, voted by a simple majority – to manipulate the age limit, after which a judge will retire by virtue of the law.

Repeatedly criticised by the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers, the imprecision of the literal provisions of the Constitution must not be used to violate the principles that are not only the principles of the Polish Constitution, but an element of the legal culture of our entire civilisation. There is no doubt that the possibility of determining the age limit of “retirement” must not in any way affect the term and irremovability of the First President of the Supreme Court (just like the President of the Supreme Administrative Court). The duration of the term of office of the First President is specified in the Constitution very precisely, the legislator has not decided to include in the provision a reference to a specific law that would define the terms of retirement – as is the case of retirement age of judges.

In the “old” Act on the Supreme Court, the legislator in Art. 10, in relation to constitutional regulations, narrowed the group of persons who may become the First President of the Supreme Court – the Constitution says that the President appoints the First President from among the candidates presented by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court Judges, while the Act states that the Polish President appoints the First President from among the judges of the Supreme Court in an active state. In the “new” law on the Supreme Court, the procedure was made precise even further – it was specified that the General Assembly of Supreme Court Judges may submit five candidates selected from among the judges of the Supreme Court in the active state. At the same time, it was supplemented that the First President may only be appointed once, and the position may be taken only until the state of retirement, being retired or the end of term. Thus, the Act defines the conditions for terminating the term of office, the duration of which – without exceptions or delegations to determine them in statutory mode – is provided for in the Constitution.

There can be no doubt that the confusion around the Supreme Court would not have occurred if the Polish Constitution had been written in a logical, understandable, and unambiguous manner. This is not the case, however, and unless a new Constitution is adopted, we must rely on the goodwill of those who make use of its provisions. Unfortunately, as the history of the proceedings of the new law on the Supreme Court clearly show together with the shape of the adopted regulations and the subsequent conduct of the authorities, one cannot really speak of goodwill in this case. From the very beginning, the undisguised goal was to get past (or even break) the provisions of the Constitution and to terminate the term of office of the First President of the Supreme Court by retiring the person in question.

The Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers criticises the actions of the legislator, the government, and the president in relation to the Supreme Court and draws attention to the fact that the credibility of the judiciary is one of the key conditions for conducting business in Poland, which is taken into account by both foreign investors and Polish entrepreneurs in making investment decisions. The condition of the Polish judiciary will have an impact on the economic situation and budget results, i.e. factors that allow the current government to carry out some of the amendments. By undertaking such controversial actions, the authorities contribute to the perversion of the rule of law, which – as the latest history of political culture in our country shows – will be a process deepened by successive administrations, which are equipped with an excellent excuse to creatively interpret the Constitution in a spirit coincident with their own, current political interest.

The Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers has repeatedly emphasised the need to urgently reform the judiciary, but we must not accept a situation in which this reform has an almost exclusively personal dimension. For entrepreneurs, the political views of adjudicators are not important – as long as they leave them outside the courtroom. The key is that the economic dispute be settled as quickly as possible. We are still counting on a real change of the system, one that serves Poland, the justice system itself, as well as the citizens and entrepreneurs seeking in courts protection of their rights.

Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers

Warsaw, 3rd July 2018

Polish entrepreneurs against the tax on links and network filtering

Representatives of the largest Polish unions of entrepreneurs and associations representing companies from the modern technology, digital and internet sectors jointly appealed to Polish MEPs that they reject the draft EU Copyright Directive in its current form, which will cause damages, among others, to Polish companies, scientists, and Internet users. They also turned to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki for support in this matter. The Polish Consumer Federation has also voice its concerns over certain draft regulations.

 

As it was emphasised in the joint letter – signed by the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers, the National Chamber of Commerce, the Union of Digital Technology Employers Lewiatan, Polish Digital Association, Centrum Cyfrowe Foundation and Startup Poland – the adoption of the EU Copyright Directive in its current form will negatively affect the competitiveness of the entire the sector related to modern technologies, which will also impact Polish consumers. “That is why it is in our common interest that the Internet, which plays a fundamental role in the digital economy, remained open and accessible to all. Any attempts to artificially restrict access to content will affect the development of innovation,” it was stressed.

No to link tax

According to entrepreneurs, the idea of introducing provisions on content licencing through the so-called “link tax” in Art. 11 of the Directive is the wrong thing to do. Because, as they argue, publishers are now sufficiently protected by applicable copyright laws. “From German and Spanish experiences, it is clear that from an economic point of view the concept of charging for linking does not make sense and will not bring any income to publishers, but it will lead to closing of access paths to information that are convenient for users, as well as to the ruin of small, local, and specialist publishers who rely on aggregators, social media, and search engines as sources of traffic generating income from advertising,” they explain. And they metaphorically ring the alarm that the right to free competition will also be in question, because provisions in such wording will actually only favour the largest of publishers. “The future of smaller publishing houses and journalistic initiatives or start-ups, which will not be able to obtain all the licences – from large publishers – necessary to exist on the market will be threatened,” emphasised the signatories of the letter.

Not to the obligation to filter content

Also Art. 13 of the Directive, which introduces the obligation to filter the Internet to protect copyright, as well as the legal liability of internet service providers for the content of posting by their users, raises their objections. As they explain, such rules will cause unpredictable consequences and damages for innovative undertakings functioning on the Web as well as the entire e-commerce market. Internet service providers will be obliged to introduce special filters in order to avoid the possible consequences for possible infringement of copyright. This would not only affect the smallest entities again, but it is contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as it hinders the operation of one’s own business, as well as restricts freedom of speech of consumers themselves. “It can be assumed in advance that excessive caution of publishers would even result in censorship. This is contrary to the values of the European Union, which was to be open to citizens and whose one of the basic assumptions was the development of an information society and the competitiveness of European industry and culture,” it was cited in the letter.

No to data flow limits

The proposed form of copyright in the Digital Single Market in accordance with the provisions of Art. 3 of the draft Directive, according to entrepreneurs, will threaten to block progress in the field of data flow and use of data (text and data mining; TDM). “The introduction of an exception to the free practice of TDM only for some researchers, in particular, will hit Poland, which is the country of choice for international concerns to locate their R&D centres. We express our concerns that the introduction of new provisions in such a limited form will result in the transfer of these centres from Poland to other countries outside the European Union,” they warned.

The Polish Consumer Federation concerned about the possible limitation of access to information

The Polish Consumer Federation also raises objections to the EU Directive, which expressed its concern in the letter sent to MEPs about the effects of the proposed Directive. And especially resulting from the introduction of provisions of Art. 11 and Art. 13: “We are concerned that the new regulations will significantly limit access to information on the Web, prevent the freedom to share them, which will undermine the foundations of a modern information society,” stated the Consumer Federation and appealed to Polish representatives in the European Parliament for a deliberate decision in the vote over the Directive.