Search

Cardiac arrhythmias are common and an important source of mortality and morbidity. Current management options include surgical and catheter ablative techniques using surgical incisions, cryotherapy, or radio-frequency (RF) energy. General indications include drug-resistant arrhythmias, drug intolerance, severe symptoms, or a desire to avoid lifelong symptoms. Ablative procedures can abolish the origins of arrhythmias by interposition of scar tissue along a reentry pathway or by isolating an ectopic area. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) often results from ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins, and ablative strategy involves pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is less effective and requires an additional ablation of sites identified during a stepwise mapping process. Surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (i.e., Maze procedure) can be performed without an additional risk of operative mortality or major morbidity and is recommended at the time of concomitant open heart surgery to restore sinus rhythm. The Cox maze III procedure achieved high cure rates and became the surgical gold standard for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Different ablation techniques have unique complications and requirements for anesthesia. Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is most commonly utilized to prevent arrhythmia suppression. However, patients who are unable to lie still, flat, or tolerate the procedure under sedation may require general anesthesia. Protracted procedures involving left atrial ablation and transseptal puncture may be better performed under general anesthesia. Major complications of ablation procedures include cardiac tamponade and esophageal injury.

The development of minimally invasive surgery, improvement in surgical technique and pain control, as well as better patient selection and preoperative management contribute to significant expansion of ambulatory anesthesia. Nearly two-thirds of all operations are performed in outpatient facilities according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The surgical procedures suitable for same-day surgery are characterized by modest surgical trauma, no likelihood of continuing blood loss or large perioperative fluid shifts, or no need for complex postoperative care. Ambulatory surgery is being offered to a variety of patients with significant coexistent diseases. The suitability of ambulatory surgery in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains controversial; therefore, the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) developed a consensus statement. The recommendations include the use of the STOP-Bang questionnaire for preoperative OSA screening and considering patients’ comorbid conditions in the selection process. Ambulatory surgery is very safe, with low perioperative mortality. Predictors for morbidity and mortality are obesity, prolonged operative time, prior cardiac surgical intervention, hypertension, and a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke. In elderly patients, the presence of comorbidities, disability, and frailty are associated with postoperative complications.

This publication addresses the issue of the collaborative economy in the European Union from the perspective of sustainable development. From the simple idea of renting, lending, reselling, or swapping underutilised resources (e.g., tools, space, time, and skills), the collaborative economy developed into a complex, novel, and innovative economic sector which has completely revolutionised traditional markets and shifted consumer preferences and lifestyles. Today’s collaborative economy consists of a wide array of business models which vary significantly in their ideological roots, values, technological resources, size, and legal forms. This multifaceted socio-economic phenomenon has become a subject of fierce debate in both media and academic discourses. While supporters of the collaborative economy firmly believe that it is a promising opportunity for individual activism, sustainable development and environmental progress, opponents call it a misleading mystification of an unruly and unjustly idealised “low cost” access economy. Whether collaborative platforms should be seen as profit-driven corporations which hide their disruptive business model under greenwashing slogans, or as pioneers in transforming commercial business models into sustainable and environmentally friendly companies, is highly disputed.

In order to address the negative consequences of double taxation of the same income or capital belonging to a EU citizen, bi- and multilateral tax treaties have been concluded between the Member States. The EU legislator has enacted legislation introducing measures such as Directive 2003/49/EC, Directive 2011/96/EU and the EU Arbitration Convention to counteract the adverse effects of double taxation. Considering the imperfections in the previous procedures, the Council of the EU has issued Directive 2017/1852 on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms in the EU, aiming to eliminate the existing shortcomings and to create a harmonized framework for dispute resolution. The aim of this article is to present the phenomenon of double taxation in the EU, to identify the shortcomings of the current mechanisms and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the procedure provided for in Directive 2017/1852. Procedura wzajemnego porozumienia przewidziana w Dyrektywie 2017/1852 jako remedium na problem podwojnego opodatkowania w Unii EuropejskiejW praktyce obrotu gospodarczego UE niejednokrotnie dochodzi do podwojnego opodatkowania tego samego dochodu lub kapitalu nalezącego do obywatela UE. W celu zniwelowania negatywnych konsekwencji podwojnego opodatkowania panstwa czlonkowskie zawarly miedzy sobą liczne bi- i multilateralne umowy podatkowe. Prawodawca uchwalil akty prawne wprowadzające środki przeciwdzialające niekorzystnym skutkom podwojnego opodatkowania, to jest Dyrektywe 2003/49/WE, Dyrektywe 2011/96/UE i tak zwaną unijną konwencje arbitrazową. Mając na uwadze niedoskonalości w dotychczasowych procedurach, Rada UE wydala Dyrektywe 2017/1852 w sprawie mechanizmow rozstrzygania sporow dotyczących podwojnego opodatkowania w UE, ktora dązy do wyeliminowania istniejących niedociągniec oraz stworzenia sharmonizowanych ram rozstrzygania sporow. Celem artykulu jest przedstawienie zjawiska podwojnego opodatkowania w UE, wskazanie wad obecnie obowiązujących mechanizmow oraz dokonane analizy procedury przewidzianej w Dyrektywie 2017/1852.

One of the biggest challenges of European law is balancing the relations between the Member States and the European Union. An especially interesting aspect of this issue is the horizontal impact of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. The authors of the article will reconstruct the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which precisely settles problems related to this issue. Various examples will be examined, ranging from the renowned judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court in Case C-617/10 Aklagaren v. Hans Akerberg Fransson to the most recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court in Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martin Brosonn. The authors will also evaluate the settled case law using a holistic perspective on the whole system of European law and its principles. Horyzontalny skutek oddzialywania Karty Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej w linii orzeczniczej Trybunalu Sprawiedliwosci UEJednym z najwiekszych wyzwan prawa europejskiego jest uzyskanie balansu miedzy systemami prawnymi poszczegolnych panstw czlonkowskich a systemem Unii Europejskiej. Zagadnieniem, ktore jawi sie jako niezwykle interesujące w tym kontekście, jest horyzontalny skutek oddzialywania Karty Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Autorzy artykulu dokonali rekonstrukcji linii orzeczniczej Trybunalu Sprawiedliwości UE, ktore w sposob konsekwentny rozwija wykladnie tej problematyki — od legendarnego juz wyroku wielkiej izby Trybunalu w sprawie C-617/10 Aklagaren przeciwko Hansowi Akerbergowi Franssonowi po najnowszy w badanym zakresie wyrok wielkiej izby Trybunalu w sprawach polączonych C‑569/16 i C‑570/16 Stadt Wuppertal przeciwko Marii Elisabeth Bauer oraz Volker Willmeroth przeciwko Martinie Brosonn. Autorzy podjeli sie takze ewaluacji dotychczasowej linii orzeczniczej w sposob holistyczny, biorąc pod uwage czynniki wynikające z calego systemu prawnego UE oraz jej zasad i wartości.

The co-respondent mechanism in the view of accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human RightsFor the past seventy years there have been discussions and activities on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The ratio of the Union’s accession to the Convention is a need to harmonize the European system of protection of individual rights. There are numerous problems and obstacles to achieve this goal created by the specific, supra-national character of the Union sui generis. It requires the introduction of unique mechanisms and procedures that would allow an international organization such as the EU to become a party to the Convention. One such procedure is provided in art. 3 of the draft agreement, the co-respondent mechanism of the European Union and the Member State in proceedings under the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of the article is to present the allegations of the Court of Justice, assess their validity and indicate possible future solutions regarding the co-respondent mechanism. After analyzing the European Commission’s request for an opinion on the compliance of the draft agreement with community law, the CJEU considered the draft as incompatible with EU law and listed ten issues that prevented the Union from joining the Convention in the proposed form. Among them, as many as three points refer to the corresponding mechanism and concern in particular the decision on the validity of the conclusions of the Union or a Member State by the Strasbourg Court, accepting joint liability and deciding on the division of responsibility between the Union and the Member State. In the article dogmatic method was used in order to analyze three aforementioned points. Due to the provision of art. 218 par. 11 p. 2 TFEU, the Commission is bound by the opinion of the Court of Justice, and that the presented draft agreement cannot constitute an international agreement allowing for the accession of the Union to the Convention in the proposed form.

Does forgiveness nullify the effects of previous disinheritance? The legal nature of forgiveness is the subject of passionate debates among the representatives of civil law doctrine. According to the dominant position in the literature, forgiveness is an act of affection or its manifested expression of forgiveness of the perpetrator of experienced injustice and related to this grudge. This institution has been applied three times in the Civil Code — once with the donation agreement, twice in regulations of inheritance law. Article 1010 § 1 provides that a testator cannot disinherit eligible for legal portion if he forgave him. The wording of the above article indicates that accomplishment of disinheritance in case if testator eligible for legal portion has previously forgiven. The legislator did not, however, determine the effects of forgiveness in relation to previous disinheritance. In the act of 1971, the Supreme Court accepted that such forgiveness would automatically nullify the effects of disinheritance, and could be made in any form. In recent years, lower courts have begun to question the Supreme Court's position, and judges increasingly refer to the critical statements of numerous doctrines. As it was rightly stated, admitting the possibility of invoking the forgiveness made after disinheritance poses a serious threat to the realization of the testator’s will, who, by forgiving, does not necessarily want to revoke the effects of his previous disinheritance. The postulate of de lege ferenda is, according to the author of the article, giving of freedom of judging the effects of forgiveness to the courts and each examination of the forgiving testator’s will on the possible abatement of the consequences of previous disinheritance. ]]>