Offering “White-label” products and services is a well-developed business sector in the European market. At present, this market concept is also increasingly being applied to financial services, as part of a bank–FinTech cooperation. A question arises, however, as to the proper place for such models within the complex system of European financial law. This article reviews the “White-label” frameworks currently operating in the banking sector and the corresponding regulations of the European Union law, based on their application in German and Polish legal system. Purposive, grammatical, and comparative law methods were used to study the content of legal acts. As a result, the principles of two primary models of White-label banking were established. The first model is based on a bank acting only as an outsourcing service provider. In the second model, a bank also operates on the basis of a license it was granted. Both models have a common legal origin in European Union law, but local variations exist depending on the legal system of a given Member State.

The purpose of this paper is to present the two existing virtual account models functioning in the European Union, examine their legal validity and identify the legal challenges related to the functioning of these models. The first model, Mass Payment Accounts, which is related to virtual accounts rather than to virtual IBANs, is the model where the licensed financial institution only provides a business payment (settlement) account, with technical subaccounts, to one of their business clients. The functionality of the subaccounts is limited to reflect and distinguish the incoming payments. The second and more complex model is the vIBAN solution, where the licensed payment institution provides, to another licensed financial institution, indirect access to local payment schemes (hereinafter referred to as “vIBAN”). To confirm the legal validity and identify the potential risks of vIBAN services, EU law was analysed with some insights from Polish law. The reason for introducing vIBAN services is the difficulty for certain payment service providers to participate in so-called designated payment systems. Designated payment systems are usually the most widespread local payment systems. The reason for the different treatment of these designated systems is banking systemic risk, understood as a situation where a default by a system participant may result in a default by other participants. Consequently, even if a given payment service provider can obtain its own IBAN number, there is often no possibility for it to participate in designated payment schemes. Bearing in mind the different rules in the case of designated payment systems, the legality of vIBAN services in the EU law is justified by the principle of free movement of services, the principle of equal access to payment schemes and the obligation of the credit institutions to provide banking and non-banking participants with credit institution payment account services on an objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate basis. However, there are various challenges related to the functioning of vIBAN services, such as the overlapping of certain AML/CFT obligations, enforcement of administrative and court seizures, AML-related blocking of vIBANs and consistency of money transfer sender data with the Fund Transfer Regulation. The most pressing challenges requiring prompt regulation on the European level are related to the applicable deposit protection scheme, as well as to specific Member States’ administrative restrictions, which can cause difficulties in offering vIBAN services to business entities.

The German-Polish Friendship Circle of Orthopedics and Trauma was established in 1995 in Germany, originally called "the Friendship Circle of the Polish Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology". The founders of the Circle were Prof. Johannes Breitenfelder (Brakel/Westfalen), dr.Barbara Czernicka and dr. Jacek Czernicki (Munich), prof. Jörg Gekeler (Sindelfingen), dr. Michał von Grabowski (Illingen/Saar) with wife Vilia, prof. Hans-Rudolf Henche (Rheinfelden), dr. Rutger Hundt (Baden-Baden), prof. Günter Janssen, doc. dr. Eberhard Knöfler (Erfurt), dr. Burkhard Maaz (Meerbusch), prof. Michael Menge (Ludwigshafen) prof. Heinz Mittelmeier (Homburg/Saar), prof. Wolfram Neumann (Magdeburg) prof. Witold Ramotowski (Warsaw), dr. Andreas Rat (Münchberg), prof. Lothar Rabenseifner (Offenburg), prof. Engelbert Seeber (Dessau) and dr. Klaus-Dieter Wessels. According to the first charter of the Circle, its main tasks were to establish and develop contacts between German and Polish orthopedists, to promote the development of Polish orthopedics and traumatology and related medical fields, to enable the training of Polish doctors in leading German clinics, to support their scientific research and organization of joint scientific conferences and training sessions-the first four were held biannually in Poland. Since 2004, they have been organized annually, alternately in Poland and Germany.

Kody i zagadki w "spiskach" tatrzańskich O dczytywanie ukrytych treści rękopiśmiennych "spisków" tatrzańskich odbywa się na kilku poziomach, a każdy z nich stwarza odrębne problemy. "Spisek" znaczy tyle, co 'rzecz spisana'. To słowo występuje jedynie w kontekście staropolskich rękopisów, których zadaniem jest doprowadzenie czytelnika do skarbów, ukrytych głęboko w górach. "Spiski" dotyczą przede wszystkim Tatr, choć niektóre-fragmentarycznie-wspominają także o skarbach ukrytych w Beskidach. W Opisaniu ciekawym gór Tatrów 1 znajduje się ustęp zatytułowany "Babia Góra". W czasach, gdy prowadzono owe poszukiwania, te obszary były bardzo słabo poznane 2. Teksty, o których mowa, były skierowane do wtajemniczonych adresatów, zapewne krewnych autorów rękopisów 3. Integralną ich część stanowią rysunki rytych znaków naskalnych,-poszukiwacz skarbów miał ich wypatrywać z rękopisem w ręku, przemierzając niebezpieczny, górski teren. Zadaniem "spisków" było przeprowadzenie czytelnika przez te trudności. Ze względu na groźbę dostania się tych cennych materiałów w niepowołane ręce, ich odczytanie utrudniano na kilka sposobów. Pierwszy z nich to zakodowanie nazw topograficznych; drugi to opisy położenia bogactw, niekiedy same w sobie stanowiące zagadki. Najczęściej dotyczą one położenia legendarnego Żabiego Jeziorka: