Poland's accession to the European Union makes our market more attractive for foreign businesses; it also makes Polish companies reliable partners in commercial relations. Poland is seen in this way not only by EU companies, but also by those from third countries such as the United States. Most American businesses were present in the EU before May 1. They are therefore familiar with European laws applicable to their operations and they know how EU institutions work at "the central level." From that perspective, a group of U.S. investors may legitimately have some expectations as to Poland's functioning in the European market after accession. This article briefly discusses certain aspects of Poland's integration with the EU relating to the applicability and enforcement of European law by domestic authorities which may be of interest to U.S . companies.

The fundamental principle that must be acknowledged in any EU member state is the supremacy of European law over domestic law. This concept dates back to the beginnings of the European Communities, and was developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) at the beginning of the '60s. Despite the fact that member states never question this principle as such, its applicability gives rise to many problems, and those problems are often specific to the case in question. Such problems are much more likely to occur in the new member states.

The level of knowledge and understanding of EU law among Polish law enforcement bodies varies considerably. Undoubtedly, among the best prepared is the National Competition Authority, which started the process of preparation for accession well in advance. This has brought visible results: well-trained officials, availability of good Polish translations of European legislation and important decisions of the European Commission and judgments of EU courts. Our practice proves, however, that similar readiness to apply EU law may not be guaranteed at the judicial level. That said, one can respond that domestic judges have this unique opportunity to ask the ECJ for interpretation of EU law in difficult domestic cases. On the other hand, such referrals prolong proceedings before domestic courts by about 18 months. The timing for resolving cases is hard to predict at a time when judges from to 10 new member states wish to "consult" the ECJ. Should domestic judges then make use of preliminary ruling proceedings before the ECJ? As a last-instance recourse-yes. Another legal rule of thumb in the EU says that domestic courts should interpret domestic laws (even those which are badly drafted) "in the spirit and light of European provisions." Therefore, there is, in fact, some room for proactive judges who decide to resolve EU law problems arising day by day by themselves. They do, however, require technical support from the state in the form of EU law training and good quality translations of European legislation and case law. Otherwise, referrals to the ECJ will become routine and will freeze companies' claims. This is certainly something that businesses do not wish to experience.
Dr. Marta Sendrowicz
Baker&McKenzie Warsaw