Central and Eastern Europe: Kicked into shape
Infrastructure projects in Poland face significant challenges thanks to the legal framework in force and the difficulties in its application. Obstacles to land acquisition, drawn-out proceedings for the expropriation or division of land, extended administrative procedures and a lack of transparency in the decision-making process are the main reasons listed by investors for low investment efficiency. Therefore, the prospect of Poland and Ukraine hosting the 2012 European Football Championships meant not only that Poland was able to undertake a tremendous construction programme to create sport and other public infrastructures, but also that it would need to adapt its legislation to enable these developments.
April 23, 2008 at 10:16 PM
6 minute read
Infrastructure projects in Poland face significant challenges thanks to the legal framework in force and the difficulties in its application. Obstacles to land acquisition, drawn-out proceedings for the expropriation or division of land, extended administrative procedures and a lack of transparency in the decision-making process are the main reasons listed by investors for low investment efficiency. Therefore, the prospect of Poland and Ukraine hosting the 2012 European Football Championships meant not only that Poland was able to undertake a tremendous construction programme to create sport and other public infrastructures, but also that it would need to adapt its legislation to enable these developments.
The Public-Private Partnership Act of 2005, which provides the legal framework for many Polish infrastructure projects, is commonly considered as too rigorous and, in some cases, impossible to apply because of the lack of necessary implementing regulations. Other factors magnify the legal obstacles in this field. Apart from the often cited, but rapidly improving, problems in securing financing from European funds, a degree of mistrust seems to remain between the public and private sectors. This undoubtedly affects the effective application of legal regulations, especially regarding protective measures during public tender proceedings, which in turn lead to potential delays in the awarding of contracts.
Against this background, following the award of the 2012 European Football Championships to Poland and Ukraine in April 2007, Poland has undertaken intensive legislative reforms on the laws governing infrastructure projects. The Polish Parliament adopted the most relevant piece of legislation on 7 September, 2007 – the special Euro 2012 Act.
This Act sets out the conditions for the construction projects necessary for the football event, defined jointly as the 'Euro 2012 projects'. Accordingly, the Euro 2012 Act does not apply to projects relating to national roads or railway lines of national importance (although there is no doubt that these will also be vital for the tournament).
One of the most remarkable features of the Euro 2012 Act is the creation of special legal instruments in order to achieve its objectives. For instance, the Euro 2012 Act provides for the creation of special purpose vehicles (SPVs). SPVs are companies to be incorporated by the Polish Treasury and the cities that are to host Euro 2012 matches. The activities of these non-profit companies will be exclusively related to Euro 2012 projects. The Euro 2012 SPVs are to undertake the projects according to the agreement to be signed with the Treasury and local government authorities, which will stipulate the scopes of the specific tasks, the ways in which these companies are to carry out their activities, the range of works permitted to be entrusted to private companies and the conditions for such delegations. The Euro 2012 SPVs have special characteristics which are required in order to prevent some of the above mentioned problems affecting the Euro 2012 projects. For example, in order to guarantee the SPVs' professional management, although the Euro 2012 SPVs are publicly-owned companies, the legislator has excluded the application of public sector rules on management remuneration. Another important feature is the right of Euro 2012 SPVs to terminate any contract signed with contractors or suppliers with immediate effect, should there be a delay or inadequate fulfilment of the contractual conditions.
Other examples of the Euro 2012 Act's attempts at avoiding the 2012 projects suffering the same fate as other infrastructure projects include a simplified land-expropriation procedure, which is specific to Euro 2012-related purposes, and a 'softer' application of the planning procedures. The land expropriation procedure (a very delicate matter in Poland) includes the right to occupy land, as well as to prepare it for its development, as from the initiation of the expropriation procedure. It must be highlighted that administrative decisions concerning Euro 2012 projects are immediately enforceable and that the deadlines for appeals and similar legal protections have been shortened. However, not all benefits created through the Euro 2012 Act are reserved for Euro 2012 SPVs. Indeed, Euro 2012 projects may cover other entities' investments that could be financed under public and private partnership rules. In this sense, a list of officially accepted projects for Euro 2012 has been established by the government, but may be increased if the interested cities so request.
In short, with the Euro 2012 Act, the Polish Parliament sought to simplify public tender proceedings concerning agreements to be signed between SPVs and entrepreneurs in relation to the Euro 2012 tournament.
Nevertheless, the Act adopted on 7 September, 2007, will soon be amended. Some of its provisions have been considered contrary to European Union law by the European Commission and are expected to be repealed by a bill presently under discussion. This bill also includes changes to the Public Tender Act of 29 January, 2004, and the Public-Private Partnership Act of 28 July, 2005, which should improve public tender proceedings in general and eliminate some of the existing difficulties. The planned changes are expected to increase transparency and publicity in the decision-making process, as well as shortening the decision terms for all infrastructure projects. These amendments to the Public Tender Act are likely to reduce opportunities for abuse in the appeal process and, generally, facilitate the access of small and medium enterprises to the Euro 2012 projects.
Moreover, changes to other legislation affecting infrastructure projects (including planning, state property and building acts), are being considered in order to improve the legal framework and facilitate the fulfilment of obligations involved in hosting the Euro 2012 event. Some of the measures introduced by the Euro 2012 Act are still subject to discussion, such as whether a higher degree of private participation in the Euro 2012 projects would be advisable or whether the simplified expropriation procedure is constitutional. However, the most important long-term feature of the Euro 2012 Act is its introduction of a number of solutions which could serve as valuable experience for the Polish legislator. This is not exclusively due to the legal changes themselves, but also to their merging with the education and transformation of mentality that the Euro 2012 could bring to Poland. Both civil servants and private-sector entities will need to adapt quickly to this small but strong legal revolution in public infrastructure regulation, which could significantly benefit other areas once the football matches are over. Some claim that Poland may still face the challenge of establishing a firm and simple infrastructure project law. While this is presently only envisaged as a long-term achievement, Euro 2012 can certainly be a great boost in this direction.
Agustin Redondo is a partner and Miloslawa Wach a lawyer at Uria Menendez in Warsaw.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternational Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250