Author: Informatyk A. Przybysz

The NIS2 Directive (Network and Information Security 2) is a new legal act that replaces the earlier NIS1 Directive of 2016. The Directive entered into force on 16 January 2023, and Member States were required to transpose it into their national legal systems by 17 October 2024. Poland, like France, Spain, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Bulgaria, has not yet completed this process. However, the national legislative process is currently at an advanced stage.

Objective of the Directive

The primary objective of the Directive is to strengthen protection against digital threats across the European Union. It introduces uniform cybersecurity rules for sectors that are critical to the economy and society, including energy, transport, healthcare, digital infrastructure, banking, and the maritime economy. The regulation obliges Member States to develop national cybersecurity strategies, enhances cross-border cooperation in responding to major incidents, and grants supervisory authorities stronger powers to monitor compliance and enforce the provisions.

What does the implementation of the NIS2 Directive look like in Poland?

In Poland, the NIS2 Directive is being implemented through an amendment to the Act on the National Cybersecurity System. To date, the legislative work has involved two draft bills. However, it was only the second draft that softened the most heavily criticised solutions, including, among others:

• the mandatory application of ISO standards, which was ultimately abandoned,
• the deadlines for conducting the first audit, which were extended,
• supply chain requirements, which were limited to direct suppliers.

The draft amendment adopted by the government:

• expands the catalogue of entities subject to the obligations,
• introduces new incident response teams (sectoral CSIRTs),
• strengthens the powers of supervisory authorities, such as the Minister for Digital Affairs and CSIRT GOV.

Entities covered by the new regulations will be required, inter alia, to conduct risk assessments, implement security measures, train employees, and report incidents. It is anticipated that the new provisions will enter into force around mid-2026.

The maritime sector – who is covered

Importantly for businesses, the NIS2 regulations introduce a differentiated supervisory model. Under this model, certain organisations will be subject to particularly intensive supervisory obligations. This applies to so-called essential entities, for which the legislator has envisaged more far-reaching oversight than for other participants in the system. The transport sector, including maritime transport, is classified as an essential sector due to its significant role in the economy and society.

In practice, the NIS2 regulations primarily affect entities operating on a larger scale, which ensure the continuity of transport and logistics processes. These are mainly organisations that employ at least several dozen employees and generate substantial annual revenues.

In the maritime sector, this primarily concerns:

• operators of maritime, inland waterway, and coastal transport (both passenger and cargo),
• port authorities,
• entities carrying out work and operating equipment within ports,
• operators of vessel traffic systems.

Such entities will be required to implement the full set of NIS2 requirements. It should also be emphasised that the size criterion is relevant, although it is not always decisive. In certain cases, inclusion under the regulations depends on the importance of a given activity for the functioning of the state or for ensuring the continuity of services.

This approach ensures that protection covers the entire critical maritime infrastructure, which is vulnerable to cyberattacks capable of paralysing trade and logistics.

Obligations for maritime entities and the significance of NIS2

• Entities operating in the maritime sector will be required to:
• regularly assess cybersecurity risks to IT and OT systems (operational technology, e.g. port control systems),
• implement incident response procedures and report serious breaches,
• train personnel on digital threats,
• ensure supply chain security (although, in the Polish draft, this has been limited to direct suppliers),
• cooperate with other entities and authorities in the exchange of information on threats.

A key novelty is the explicit emphasis on the responsibility of senior management for overseeing the implementation of cybersecurity obligations. This means that cybersecurity issues cease to be the exclusive domain of IT departments and become an element of managerial accountability.

The implementation of NIS2 is undoubtedly a challenge in terms of costs, as it involves investments in technology, audits, and training. However, it also delivers numerous benefits by strengthening resilience to incidents, which in the long term will help minimise financial losses and the risk of losing critical data. It also enhances international cooperation and improves the exchange of information on threats.

From a reputational perspective, the regulations may also affect competitiveness and development opportunities. Companies that meet high cybersecurity standards gain the trust of global partners, while the modernisation of IT/OT systems can deliver operational efficiencies (e.g. in offshore wind projects or logistics).

The significance of the ISPS Code

The International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code was developed in response to global security threats that emerged at the beginning of the 21st century and led to strengthened protection of port and maritime infrastructure. ISPS regulations focus primarily on a systemic approach to the security of ports and vessels, encompassing threat assessments, the organisation of protective procedures, and the preparation of personnel to respond to incidents. The NIS2 Directive extends this approach into the area of cybersecurity, placing emphasis on the resilience of information and technological systems to increasingly sophisticated digital threats.

Integrating NIS2 requirements with existing ISPS mechanisms enables ports and maritime operators to build a coherent security management system in which physical and digital risks are analysed jointly and incident response is coordinated.

For Polish ports, this represents an opportunity to modernise security systems. Combining the new procedures introduced by the Directive with existing security plans based on the ISPS Code will help avoid duplication of efforts and create a single, coherent risk management framework covering both digital and physical security.

Current situation in the maritime sector

As of December 2025, the Polish national legislation implementing NIS2 has not yet entered into force, and the legislative process is in its final stage. This means that entities operating in the maritime sector are not yet subject to formal obligations arising from the new act.

However, many port operators and shipowners are already voluntarily preparing for implementation. This includes modernising IT infrastructure, integrating NIS2 procedures with existing ISPS security plans, and investing in training.

The maritime sector is facing significant changes, but the full set of obligations will only apply once the amendment to the Act on the National Cybersecurity System is adopted and enters into force—most likely in the first half of 2026.

The NIS2 Directive represents an important step towards strengthening cybersecurity across the European Union. For seaports and maritime sector entities, it entails not only new regulatory obligations, but above all an opportunity to enhance operational resilience and competitiveness.

Sailing, especially on large, open waters, has always carried many risks. Some of these risks can be more easily mitigated (e.g., by building vessels with better construction), while others can only be prevented (e.g., by anticipating adverse weather conditions). 

In today’s world, however, there is another emerging threat – the risk associated with cybersecurity. 

On a yacht, this is not only a technological issue but also a legal one. It can have significant implications for owners, shipowners, and the crew. Ensuring the vessel’s cybersecurity is becoming increasingly important for the safety of navigation, data protection, and avoiding potential legal liability. 

Cybersecurity as an element of maritime safety 

Cybersecurity is the organised management of risks associated with the use of IT systems. 

IT systems affect the daily work of the crew, passenger comfort and overall navigation. These include, for example, Wi-Fi networks and crew and passenger computers. Problems with these systems can delay a voyage, disrupt communication or cause data loss. 

Some of them, such as autopilot systems or propulsion control, have a direct impact on the physical operation of the yacht. Disruption of their operation can lead to loss of controllability, navigation errors or loss of communication. 

The yacht also processes the personal data of crew members and passengers. Violation of personal data protection rules resulting from a lack of adequate security measures may in turn lead to claims or notification obligations. 

Therefore, ensuring cybersecurity on board is an integral part of maritime safety. 

Example:
During a cruise in the Mediterranean Sea, a luxury yacht suddenly changes course. It turns out that a cybercriminal has taken control of the autopilot. The crew must quickly regain control to avoid running aground. 

International rules and regulations 

Cybersecurity rules on yachts are governed by international law. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) introduced the obligation to include cyber risk in the International Safety Management (ISM) system in 2017. In 2024, an industry shipping consortium involving BIMCO (Baltic and International Maritime Council) and others issued specific guidelines on this issue. 

Although these regulations mainly apply to commercial vessels, their principles are equally important for yachts. Compliance with them can help manage risk, limit legal and financial liability, and keep documentation in order. 

Example:
The yacht owner regularly audited the systems in accordance with IMO guidelines. During the attack attempt, critical areas were protected, which prevented an incident and avoided costly claims. 

Cyber risks on a yacht – what are we facing? 

Cyber threats on a yacht can come from various sources. Here are the most common problems that may occur while sailing: 

1. Targeted attacks – cybercriminals can take control of yacht systems, such as the navigation system, leading to a change of course, data theft or disruption of yacht operations.
2. Accidental attacks – e.g. installing software that contains a virus that can infect systems.
3. Crew errors – crew members may accidentally introduce a threat, e.g. through improper management of access to IT systems.
4. Supplier errors – suppliers who do not adhere to appropriate security standards may introduce devices or software that are vulnerable to attack. 

Common cyber threats include: 

• phishing – attacks involving impersonating trusted sources in order to obtain login details,
• malware – malicious software that infects systems,
• ransomware – locking systems and data and demanding a ransom,
• Wi-Fi attacks – taking control of the Wi-Fi network on a yacht,
• navigation manipulation – e.g. manipulating GPS data in order to steer a yacht onto a dangerous course. 

Example:
A young crew member connects his phone to the on-board network, unknowingly introducing malware that blocks the yacht’s computers and compromises passenger data. 

Cyber risk management cycle – IMO and NIST 

Cyber risk management is based on a cycle consisting of five steps: 

1. Identification – identifying resources and threats related to IT systems,
2. Protection – implementation of appropriate security measures, such as access and user control,
3. Detection – monitoring systems for threats and analysing logs,
4. Response – taking corrective action in response to an incident,
5. Recovery – restoring normal operations after an incident and securing systems.

This cycle, developed by IMO and NIST, should be activated regularly, especially after any system changes or incidents. 

Example:
Upon detecting unusual activity in the logs, the team immediately implemented the response and recovery procedure, minimising the impact of the attack. 

Responsibilities of the owner, operator, crew and suppliers 

Cybersecurity management on a yacht is not the responsibility of just one entity. There are five entities, each with its own specific duties in this regard: 

• owner: responsible for ensuring adequate financial resources for the implementation and maintenance of the cybersecurity system, defining security policies and conducting regular reviews,
• operator: manages cyber risk, verifies service providers, provides crew training,
• crew: complies with access policy, monitors systems and reports any irregularities,
• suppliers: ensure that their products comply with cybersecurity requirements, secure devices and software,
• passengers: they have no specific responsibilities, but should comply with the cybersecurity rules on board.

Cybersecurity is an issue that cannot be ignored from any perspective. A threat to a yacht from one of the entities mentioned above may pose a threat to all. 

Example:
A new navigation system was installed on a yacht, but the supplier did not verify the relevant security measures. Thanks to the shipowner’s vigilance, the vulnerability was detected and immediately removed. 

Protective measures and procedures 

There are simple and common measures to increase cybersecurity on a yacht. From the perspective of those responsible, it is definitely worth implementing: 

• network segmentation – division into zones (guests, staff, critical systems) to minimise the risk of threats spreading,
• access management – use of strong passwords, differentiation of passwords in different systems, regular password changes,
• software updates – regularly updating systems from trusted sources,
• security policy – implementation of procedures concerning access, use of external devices, system monitoring and incident response. 

Imagine a yacht as a hotel – only people with the appropriate “key” are allowed access to the navigation systems, which reduces the risk of unauthorised access. 

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity on a yacht is an important element of navigational safety management, data protection and legal risk minimisation. The use of appropriate protective measures, system monitoring, compliance with regulations and the implementation of incident response procedures help to reduce risk and ensure safety on board. Although cyber attacks in the maritime environment may seem rare, it is worth implementing the recommended procedures to avoid serious consequences. 

We will return to this topic, so if you are interested, keep an eye on our content! 

The end of the year is a time for entrepreneurs to close their accounts, budgets and projects. It is also the moment when most invoice receivables actually expire. If your company has outstanding invoices from 2023 and earlier, there is a high risk that at the end of this year you will lose the opportunity to effectively pursue payment in court.  

It is true that the debtor remains a debtor after the expiry of the limitation period. However, they gain a very powerful tool: they can raise the defence of limitation.   

You will then have a much bigger problem with enforcing your claim.  

After raising the defence of limitation, the court will dismiss your claim, and you will be left with an unpaid invoice, a lost case and the costs of the proceedings.   

In practice, this means that after the limitation period has expired, you can only count on:  

1. either a set-off against your debt (if you owe each other something), 
2. or the debtor’s goodwill – which, unfortunately, rarely works at that point.

When your receivables become time-barred – the most important deadlines 

From the point of view of running a business, there are three basic deadlines: 

• 2 years – receivables from sales made within the scope of the seller’s business (classic sales of goods between companies – Article 554 of the Civil Code) or a contract for specific work;
• 3 years – receivables related to business activities (typical B2B invoices for services, deliveries, some contractual penalties);
• 6 years – this is the general limitation period for receivables not covered by shorter periods (relatively rare in business-to-business transactions).  

The limitation period begins on the date on which the claim became due – most often this is the day following the invoice payment date (e.g. if the invoice payment date is set for 15 April 2023, it becomes due on 16 April 2023).  

In addition, the rule applies that if the limitation period is at least 2 years, it ends on the last day of the calendar year, and not exactly after 2 or 3 years ‘to the day’.  

This is why:   

• many invoices from 2023 (especially for the sale of goods) will expire on 31st December 2025,
• some claims from 2022 covered by a 3-year limitation period (e.g. B2B services) will also expire at the end of 2025.

Example – how it works in practice 

In May 2023, shipyard “Maritime New Wave” issued an invoice to “DEF” for the sale of a hull for a vessel, with a payment deadline of 30 June 2023. “DEF” did not pay, and the shipyard, busy with its current business, did not take any effective legal action, hoping that the payment would be made soon: 

• the claim became due on 1 July 2023,
• the limitation period (sale of goods, 2 years) would ‘nominally’ expire on 1 July 2025,
• but due to the end-of-year rule, the limitation period will not expire until 31 December 2025.  

If, by that date, shipyard “Maritime New Wave” has not taken any action to interrupt or suspend the limitation period, after the New Year the chances of successfully enforcing this invoice in court will fall to virtually zero.   

What interrupts the limitation period  

Interrupting the limitation period means that after the action is completed, the period starts counting again from scratch – as if the clock had been reset. The most important interrupting actions include, in particular:  

• filing a lawsuit for payment in court, 
• acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor – e.g. signing a settlement agreement (judicial or extrajudicial), written confirmation of the balance, request to spread the debt into instalments, partial payment,
• initiation of enforcement proceedings (by a bailiff),
• filing a claim in the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings.  

From a business perspective, this means that instead of sending reminders for months on end, it is often more profitable to:  

1. try to obtain a settlement/acknowledgement of debt, 
2. prepare and, in the absence of a response, file a lawsuit.

Summons to settlement proceedings and mediation – only suspension  

Currently, filing a request for a summons to settlement proceedings or initiating mediation only suspends the limitation period – for the duration of the settlement proceedings or mediation.  

In practice, this means that:  

• the limitation period is suspended for the duration of the mediation/conciliation proceedings, 
• but after their completion, it continues from where it left off, 
• so if there is one month left before the limitation period expires, after the mediation is completed, there will still be only one month left.  

Therefore, a summons to a settlement attempt or mediation can be a valuable debt management tool, but should not be the only option for protecting a claim, especially at the end of the year.   

However, if it is not possible to file a lawsuit in the last days of the year, for example because the preparation of the formalities would take too long, a summons to a settlement attempt is a good solution:  

• firstly, it demonstrates the good will of the creditor, who does not want to initiate court proceedings immediately, 
• secondly, it suspends the limitation period, which extends the time limit for preparing the claim and the necessary documentation, in case the conciliation attempt is unsuccessful.   

Importantly, drafting a request for a settlement attempt is much less demanding than preparing a statement of claim. Therefore, even when acting at the last minute at the end of the year, calling on the debtor to attempt a settlement can effectively prevent the loss of the opportunity to recover your money.   

What does not affect the limitation period  

Many entrepreneurs live under the misconception that since they send payment reminders, they do not have to worry about the limitation period. Unfortunately, from a legal point of view:  

• payment reminders, reminders, emails, phone calls – do not interrupt or suspend the limitation period, 
• negotiations with the debtor alone – also do not stop time.  

These actions make sense in a business relationship, but from the point of view of the Civil Code, they are neutral – the limitation period clock continues to tick.   

What about interest on invoices  

Interest generally expires after 3 years, at the latest when the principal amount expires. However, if the principal amount has been paid and the dispute concerns only the interest, the latter – as periodic payments – generally expires after 3 years.  

Can the debtor waive the statute of limitations defence?  

Yes, the debtor may waive the statute of limitations defence, but only after the limitation period has expired. An earlier waiver (e.g. a clause in the contract stating ‘I waive the statute of limitations defence’) is ineffective.  

However, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of debtors wait for the limitation period to expire rather than waiving it. Basing a debt recovery plan on the hope that the debtor will voluntarily waive the statute of limitations is therefore, to put it bluntly, a very risky strategy.  

Patience does not pay off – especially at the end of the year  

 The closer we get to 31 December 2025, the less room there is for calm consideration and the more for concrete decisions. Delaying action against unreliable contractors for too long may mean:  

• the definitive loss of the possibility of pursuing claims in court, 
• no real chance of enforcement (debtors often dispose of their assets, change their form of business, or declare bankruptcy in the meantime), 
• the need to write off the invoice in full as an expense – not because of bad law, but because of a lack of response at the right moment.   

What to do now – in a few steps  

At the end of the year, we recommend a simple but very effective course of action for entrepreneurs:  

1.  Make a list of outstanding invoices – focus in particular on those from 2023 (sale of goods) and 2022 (B2B services). 
2. Check the limitation periods – determine the due dates, the relevant period (2, 3, 6 years) and the actual end of the period (usually 31 December of the given year). 
3. Decide on further steps – demand, negotiations, settlement, lawsuit, securing the claim, filing a claim in bankruptcy.
4. Consider seeking the support of a law firm – especially when the receivables arise from mixed cases (goods, services, transport, energy) or when partial payments, settlements or mediation have already taken place.  

The statute of limitations is not a ‘bad rule against creditors,’ but a test of activity and professionalism in receivables management. If you want your company to avoid paying for other people’s delays, the end of 2025 is the time when it is really worth looking at outstanding invoices with a calculator and a calendar. And preferably with a solicitor at your side.

Marine insurance is among the most specific forms of insurance protection, in which the relationship between the parties is based on particular trust and professionalism. Maritime trade, which by its nature is commercial trade between entities providing their services on a professional basis, must guarantee a certain level of certainty for the parties, including the insurer. 

Unlike typical non-marine insurance, where the initiative in gathering information and the responsibility for proper regulation the legal relationship rests mainly with the insurer, in marine insurance it is the policyholder who is obliged to actively disclose all circumstances known to them that may affect the ultimate assessment of the risk. 

This duty, referred to as the system of spontaneous risk declaration, follows directly from article 304 of the Maritime Code and constitutes a development of the general principle of good faith (bona fides) in maritime trade. 

This principle has its roots in the tradition of English law, which treats the contract of insurance as a contract of utmost good faith. In practice, this means that both parties – the insurer and the policyholder – are obliged to act loyally and in a manner that enables a proper assessment of the risk. The result of applying this principle is that the policyholder obtains adequate insurance cover, while on the insurer’s side the risk is minimised and profit maximised. 

Essence of the duty of disclosure 

The duty to disclose material circumstances is one of the elements of the process of concluding a marine insurance contract. The policyholder should inform the insurer of all facts known to them that may have an impact on the assessment of the risk. This duty is of an active nature – it is not limited to answering the insurer’s questions, but requires the autonomous disclosure of all data that are material from the point of view of the risk, including those whose impact on the assessment may appear marginal. 

In marine insurance it is of particular importance that the policyholder is treated as a professional party, possessing knowledge and experience in navigation, including the risks associated with it. Consequently, it is the policyholder who bears responsibility for assessing which circumstances are material and should be disclosed. 

Material circumstances 

A material circumstance is any fact that could influence the insurer’s decision to accept or reject the risk, as well as the determination of the amount of the insurance premium. This covers a wide range of information, including: 

• data concerning the vessel and its technical condition,
• the crew’s qualifications,
• the nature of cargo,
• the planned route,
• and the season of the year. 

In insurance practice, material circumstances also include previous casualties, breakdowns, repairs or other events that may indicate an increased navigational risk. 

The limits of the duty of disclosure are determined by the reasonableness and scope of the policyholder’s professional knowledge. They are not obliged to disclose information that is objectively irrelevant to the assessment of the risk, or information that they could not have known even when exercising due diligence. 

On the other hand, non-disclosure of material facts — even without any intention to mislead — may lead to serious consequences, including releasing the insurer from the obligation to pay indemnity. 

Under Polish maritime law, a breach of the duty to disclose material circumstances when concluding the insurance contract entails serious consequences for the policyholder. 

Pursuant to the relevant provisions (article 305 of the Maritime Code), in such a situation the insurer may withdraw from the contract and at the same time retain the right to the full insurance premium. This means that failure to perform the duty of disclosure – even if the contract is terminated – does not release the policyholder from the obligation to pay the premium for the period during which the insurance risk existed. 

However, the legislature has provided for an exception to this rule: where the lack of information or its inconsistency does not result from the fault of the policyholder or the insured, the insurer may not exercise the right of withdrawal. In such a case, they are only entitled to demand an appropriate increase in the premium reflecting the actual level of risk. 

It follows that the policyholder must not only refrain from concealing data, but must also consider such data carefully and present them to the insurer, in an appropriate form, for further analysis. Moreover, the policyholder cannot hide behind the alleged irrelevance of facts that were not passed on to the insurer, because they are not entitled to unilaterally decide whether a given fact could be significant from the point of view of risk assessment. 

Conclusion 

The system of spontaneous risk declaration in marine insurance is based on the assumption that the policyholder is a professional and possesses the knowledge necessary to independently disclose all material circumstances that affect the insurer’s assessment of risk. Unlike in non-marine insurance, where the insurance company asks the questions, in marine insurance the informational burden rests on the policyholder. 

A breach of the duty of disclosure results in the insurer being able to withdraw from the contract while retaining the right to the full premium. 

In this context, it must be remembered that the rules discussed above are primarily intended to facilitate commercial trade. It is the entrepreneur who is obliged to analyse everything which, within their field of expertise, may be relevant to the insurer, while the insurer limits its activity to calculating the risk and the premium. Consequently, each party to the insurance relationship focuses on the matters specific to it, without intruding upon the competences of the other party. 

Imagine you’ve just become the owner of your dream yacht. An ocean of possibilities opens up before you. But before you set sail, there’s a decision that could save you tens of thousands of euros – or give you a headache. Under which flag will you sail? Choosing a flag isn’t just about patriotism or prestige. It’s a strategic move shaped by taxes, paperwork, and freedom of navigation. 

In this article, we’ll look at three registries for yachts up to 24 meters – Poland, Malta, and Gibraltar—so you can set the right course with no surprises. 

Poland – home flag with light formalities and low fees 

In August 2020, a new law on the registration of yachts and other vessels up to 24 meters came into force, bringing a host of surprising changes. Since then, the Polish flag has become very popular and now flies from masts in marinas all across the Mediterranean. What’s more, the number of yachts registered under the Polish flag has been growing year by year, making Poland an increasingly common choice among boat owners. 

Polish registration is issued without an expiration date – one of its key advantages. In many countries, vessel registration must be renewed periodically, often for an extra fee. In Poland, it’s lifelong, allowing owners to enjoy peace of mind for years without worrying about unnecessary formalities. 

Additionally, recreational yachts up to 15 meters are exempt from mandatory safety inspections and technical surveys. Recreational yachts over 15 meters, as well as all commercial vessels, must undergo safety inspections. For that reason, the Polish flag is especially attractive to owners of smaller boats, who don’t have to factor in extra costs for technical surveys. 

Importantly, the Polish flag doesn’t impose tonnage dues on owners. That’s a particularly favourable setup for large vessels, as such fees are tied to a ship’s tonnage – the bigger the yacht, the higher the charge. On this point too, Poland compares very favourably with solutions in other countries. 

The popularity of the Polish flag is a relatively new phenomenon, so it doesn’t yet carry the same “prestige” as the Maltese or British flags. But more and more owners are recognizing the benefits of Polish registration, appreciating its simple, user-friendly rules and the absence of unnecessary financial burdens. 

Malta – your prestigious key to the Mediterranean 

The process of registering under the Maltese flag is designed for convenience. Malta sets no age limits for vessels, but: 

• ships between 10 and 15 years old must undergo a technical inspection by an authorized surveyor either before or within one month of provisional registration;
• ships 15 years and older must undergo a technical inspection by an authorized surveyor before provisional registration. 

The first step toward permanent registration is a six-month provisional registration. During this period you can sail legally, but you’ll also need to assemble the full set of required documents. If you don’t make the deadline, you can apply to extend the provisional registration for another six months. 

After this, you move to permanent registration, which has no expiry but requires payment of an annual tonnage tax and other fees. With the Maltese flag there are no hard time limits – the flag stays with you as long as you meet the requirements – making Malta an attractive option for long-term owners. 

The Maltese flag is a prestigious mark of quality. As the largest maritime registry in Europe and one of the largest in the world, Malta enjoys a reputation as a ‘flag of confidence’ that is widely recognised and respected by port authorities. This ensures smooth flows and fewer administrative obstacles in international waters.  

High safety standards mean that insurers are keen to accept Maltese yachts, often offering lower rates. As a European Union flag, it gives access to EU waters without additional formalities. 

Gibraltar – a tradition of British sailing 

Gibraltar, a British overseas territory, attracts yacht owners not only with its strategic location at the crossroads of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, its reputation for high-quality registration, but also with the prestige of the British flag. As a member of the Red Ensign group, Gibraltar offers global recognition and flexibility, making it the ideal choice for shipowners seeking security without excessive bureaucracy. 

Yachts, regardless of age, can be registered with the Gibraltar Yacht Registry (GYR), but the basic requirement is a Tonnage Measurement Survey, carried out by one of six classification societies recognised by GYR. This means that the vessel doesn’t have to be inspected within Gibraltar jurisdiction. 

In Poland, only yachts with a hull length of over 24 meters are subject to this requirement, which makes it much easier to register a yacht up to 24 meters in length, especially since the dimensions can be certified by, for example, a CE declaration or a document prepared by the shipyard during the construction of the yacht. 

As with Malta, Gibraltar offers two types of registration – temporary and full. It starts with the former, which is valid for three months, with the possibility of extension to a maximum of six months. After that, you can move on to full registration, renewable for 12, 24, 48 or 60 months. 

The prestige of the flag comes with registration costs: 

• 232 GBP – application for yacht registration,
• 181 GBP – application for temporary yacht registration,
• 26 GBP – application for annual renewal of the registration certificate. 

The Gibraltar flag isn’t just a symbol – it is the prestige of the Red Ensign, recognised worldwide as a mark of high quality and compliance with international maritime standards, on a par with British registers. As part of the Red Ensign, it offers legal protection based on access to assistance from British embassies and consulates, easier insurance with lower rates, and freedom to sail in international waters without additional permits. 

Summary 

Choosing a flag for a yacht is not only a matter of symbolism, but also an important strategic element that affects costs, administrative formalities and sailing comfort. The Polish flag, thanks to its simple and advantageous solutions, is gaining popularity, offering shipowners indefinite registration, no tonnage taxes and minimal formalities.  

On the other hand, flags such as Malta and Gibraltar attract owners with their prestige and benefits related to high safety standards and flexibility in procedures.   

The choice of the right register depends on individual needs. In each case, it is worth considering all aspects in order to make the best decision that will ensure comfort and peace of mind on board.  

If you need help registering your yacht – contact us.

On 29th August 2025, the Minister of Finance and Economy published a general interpretation referring to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in cases C-277/24 (Adjak) and C-278/24 (Genzyński). These judgments addressed the interpretation of Polish provisions on the liability of board members for the tax obligations of companies in light of EU law. 

Previous legal framework 

Article 116 of the Tax Ordinance stipulates that when a capital company is in arrears with tax payments and its assets are insufficient to cover these arrears, the tax authorities can pursue the claims from individuals who were board members at the time the tax obligation arose. Liability can only be avoided in three situations: 

• if the assets of the company are indicated that can (to a significant extent) cover the company’s arrears;
• if the board member files a bankruptcy petition in a timely manner;
• if the board member demonstrates a lack of fault in failing to file bankruptcy petition. 

In itself, this regulation is not controversial. However, in practice, it often led to situations where former board members found themselves in a procedurally difficult position. Why did this happen? 

Limited opportunities to defend against allegations 

In proceeding determining the amount of the company’s tax liability, the company is represented by its current governing bodies. However, these proceedings often concern events from the past. 

As a result, it frequently happens that the individuals who were board members during the period under review are no longer part of the company’s management. Consequently, these former board members could not participate in the proceedings. Nevertheless, they remained liable for the company’s tax obligations as former board members. If the proceedings against the company concluded with a final decision, former board members were unable to challenge its findings afterward. However, liability could still be imposed on them, and the obligation could be enforced in the amount determined during the proceedings. 

Since former board members were no longer part of the company’s governing bodies, they also lacked access to the case files. This prevented them from obtaining information about the basis on which the liability they were held accountable for was determined. 

Due to the recurrence of such situations and taxpayers’ complaints, the issue was eventually brought before the CJEU. The Court ruled that while the provisions of the Tax Ordinance themselves do not violate EU standards, in certain situations, they effectively deprive former board members of the right to a defense, which is unacceptable. 

Presumption of board member’s fault 

Another issue concerned the possibility of avoiding liability in case of failure to submit a bankruptcy petition on time. As mentioned above, a board member can avoid liability by submitting such a petition or proving there was no fault in failing to do so. In practice, fault in relation to board members was often presumed, as who else could be responsible for poor management of the company if not the management board? 

According to the CJEU, however, lack of fault can be demonstrated not only by proving innocence but also by making it probable that objective circumstances prevented the submission of the petition. However, the CJEU emphasized that such case should be examined individually. 

What the general interpretation says 

Following the conclusions from the CJEU rulings, the Minister of Finance and Economy issued a general interpretation aimed at standardizing the application of the Tax Ordinance provisions. 

The Minister stated that the right to defense for board members should be understood more broadly than previously. Although proceedings against the company are separate from proceeding against a board member, the former board member should, under certain conditions, have the right to challenge the finding contained in the decision addressed to the company. These findings could be contested by the former board member in the proceedings against them, which represents a complete change in approach compared to the previous practice in such cases. 

The Minister also acknowledged that former board members should have access to the company’s case files, and that the presumption of guilt of the board member for improper management of the company, resulting in late submission of the bankruptcy petition, is rebuttable. Thus, the board member’s fault should not be assumed “automatically”. 

Summary 

The interpretation adjusts the interpretation of Article 116 of the Tax Ordinance to the case law of the CJEU. It is likely to contribute to greater protection of former board members from liability for the tax obligations of companies. However, it is important to note that a general interpretation is not the same as a change in the law but is merely a guideline for understanding the provisions of the Tax Ordinance. In the near future, it will probably lead to a change in the approach of tax authorities, but time will tell how much this will affect the way proceedings concerning board members’ liability are conducted. 

In our previous article – Aftersales in the yachting industry pt. I – we introduced you to the topic of aftersales support. Today, we want to explore what aftersales means from the industry’s perspective – namely brokers, shipyards, and dealers. 

Warranties and statutory liability 

Under Polish law, the distinctions between a manufacturer’s warranty and statutory liability are fundamental to protecting yacht buyers. In some cases, these obligations are mandatory in Polish contracts, while in others they may be excluded. 

The provisions of the sale agreement (PSA – Purchase and Sale Agreement or MOA – Memorandum of Agreement) are crucial. They define the scope of responsibility, deadlines, and conditions for claims. A lack of clear terms may hinder the buyer’s ability to enforce their rights effectively. On the one hand, it may create uncertainty over whether the seller is in an unfavourable position. This highlights the need to structure aftersales as part of the service supply chain, with a focus on the unpredictability of events and the goal of securing the client’s return. 

Servicing and parts availability 

Parts shortages are common, especially for custom-built or imported yachts, where global factors can disrupt supply chains. We all remember the 2021 Suez Canal blockage caused by the Ever Given and its consequences. 

Delays in servicing can lead to additional costs and safety risks for both parties. For sellers, these include the costs of maintaining service operations, potential liability for damage on the buyer’s side, and uncertainty in equipment pricing. 

It’s also worth remembering the crucial value of service records and yacht history. These allow for tracking of past repairs and can significantly affect the yacht’s resale value. 

Training and documentation 

Providing user manuals and crew training is essential. A lack of knowledge can lead to breakdown or accidents. Training is part of the aftersales service package and can include both remote and on-site support. 

Well-trained buyers or their crews can prevent many unwanted incidents. Fewer complaints mean fewer obligations for the seller – and a better overall impression of the yacht in the buyer’s memory.  

Building client relationships 

Aftersales is a tool for retention and reputation management, enabling customer loyalty through ongoing support. This translates into referrals and repeat business. In capital-intensive sectors like yachting, this element can be decisive. 

For example. ISO standards such as ISO/IEC Guide 76 emphasize the importance of communication and accessibility in aftersales services, helping to build trust and reduce complaints. 

Risk and liability management 

Failure to respond to client claims can lead to legal action, financial penalties, and reputational damage. Sellers should therefore implement rapid response procedures, including performance metrics such as average response times or order fulfilment rates. 

However, risk management starts at the contract stage. Vague warranty clauses can lead to disputes over responsibility for hidden defects, resulting in legal costs and reputational harm. 

New technological challenges 

Yachts – particularly luxury ones – are increasingly equipped with advanced propulsion systems. Servicing hybrid drives and autonomous systems requires specialized expertise, posing a growing challenge for seller. 

At this year’s Cannes Yachting Festival, many companies, including Sunreef Yachts, highlighted the growing importance of aftersales support in light of increasingly complex components and their importance to customers. 

Conclusion 

Aftersales in the yachting industry is a shared responsibility between both parties. For the buyer, it ensures trouble-free use of the yacht; for the industry, meeting customer expectations guarantees safety, satisfaction, and long-term market growth. Without it, transactions become riskier, and the industry’s reputation suffers.

If you haven’t read Part 1 yet, you can find it here: Aftersales in the yachting industry – part I

Aftersales in the yachting industry – between client expectations and industry obligations – part I