The aim of this short essay is to highlight and concisely explore-but not address in depth-some cultural aspects related to legal languages, legal interpretation and legal translation. We would like to consider briefly the following questions: How can elements of legal language, as exemplified by proper names and euphemisms, be connected with cultural (extra-linguistic) factors influencing language units' formation? How can judicial discourse reflect the culture of a given justice system? How can the legal interpretation affect the degree of legal culture? Are theories of legal interpretation universal or applicable to specific legal cultures? What is the impact of culture on the context of legal translation? How can the cultural background affect the decision to use terms in translation? How does cyberculture impact legal translation?

The aim of this article is to critically reflect on the Polish transformation taking place in the interpretation of business law in the form of legal clarifications that can be qualified as a soft law guidance. The article attempts to address the following questions: does the new Polish legal framework offer really novel approaches to the interpretation of business law and/or its tools? What are the peculiarities that characterize the new instrument for the interpretation of business law in the form of legal clarifications? What are the pros and cons of legal clarifications? What is the potential practical importance of the introduced interpretation tool, in particular in the context of certain previously existing tools for the interpretation of legal texts? To this end, first, the article sheds light into types of the interpretation of legal texts as well as soft law guidance. Second, it analyses the distinctive features of legal clarifications. Third, it contains the concise comparison of legal clarifications to certain previously existing instruments. In the last part before the conclusion, the topic required an attempt at an assessment. The point of the analysis in this article was both descriptive and normative.

Th is article concentrates on amendments to the Polish legal framework for consensual dispute resolution that are needed aft er Antitrust Damages Directive (2014/104/EU). It starts with the general context of changes in consensual dispute resolution resulting from the Directive. In this regard, it provides an overview of approaches to consensual dispute resolution in the Commissions' Green and White papers as well as in the preamble to the Damages Directive. Also, it shows how consensual dispute resolution is defi ned in the Directive. Th e remainder of the article is structured as follows. It continues with the presentation of legal solutions regarding the eff ects of consensual dispute resolution. In short, it explains these eff ects on limitation periods, proceedings and fi nes. Furthermore, the article presents the eff ect of consensual settlements on subsequent actions for damages as well. Both legal solutions contained in the Damages Directive and Polish draft legal provisions implementing the Directive are discussed in this article. It concludes with a short summary.

Soon Member States will bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Damages Directive (2014/104/EU). Usually Member States do not seem willing to introduce a broader scope of the application of principles embodied in EU directives. For Member States, “copy-pasting” a directive's content into a piece of national legislation is one of the simplest ways to implement a directive (another very simple one is implementation by reference; it is just referring the reader to the directive and should not be applied where the rules in a directive are not sufficiently precise, so it is not applied very often). Member States that work on the implementation of the Damages Directive either do it in a minimalist manner, mainly "copy-pasting" its content, or take the legislative opportunity to do something more and "tidy up" domestic provisions on the occasion of the transposition of the Directive. Some Member States have chosen that last option. The article attempts to highlight some of the considerations that may be of particular relevance in this process, with the aim of formulating some recommendations for national legislatures, even though implementation works are drawing to a dose. First, some “spontaneous harmonisation” of a scope broader than that provided for in the Directive is recommended on the background of the material (substantive) scope of the Directive and its transposition. The other important considerations are addressed to the personal scope of the Directive and its transposition. Finally, the short review of some more detailed issues for decision on the occasion of the transposition of the Directive is offered. Considerations regarding the principle of civil liability, the use of collective redress mechanisms, minimum harmonisation clauses, institutional design of private enforcement of competition law, as well as incentives to voluntarily provide compensation to injured parties can be found therein.

No abstract