The starting point: technology that organises access
On 27 May 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the platform operator’s cassation appeal in proceedings concerning payment and an injunction. This study concerns the well-known Chomikuj.pl litigation; the official judgment anonymises the parties. A material issue was access to protected works after the operator had received credible information about infringement. [1]
The Supreme Court’s official account emphasises the combination of knowledge about unlawful files and cooperation in their further availability: for payment, the operator provided others with access and the ability to make a copy. This particular configuration of circumstances, rather than merely operating a server, is central to the analysis. [2]
The legal question and the outcome
In those circumstances, the Supreme Court found that the protection under Article 14(1) of the Polish Electronic Services Act did not apply and that a claim under Article 79(1)(3)(b) of the Copyright Act was available. It also did not exclude a preventive claim under Article 439 of the Civil Code. [2]
In the literature, Beata Giesen examines the judgment in the context of civil liability for indirect infringement of economic copyright. The existence of that discussion matters: a doctrinal classification should not be replaced with the sweeping assertion that every platform is responsible for everything its users do. [3]
Analytical method: from the screen to the elements of liability
The editorial team’s proposed method for studying a similar issue starts with a map of activities. Separate the user’s upload, storage, indexing, selection of recipients, collection of a fee and initiation of the transfer. For each stage, record who makes the decision and which document or technical record could support that finding. A screenshot displaying a film title does not explain the entire relationship between the user, operator and recipient.
The second step is a timeline of the operator’s knowledge. A working table records the notice date, the rights identified, the file address, proof of delivery, the response and a repeat inspection. A separate column lists gaps: an unidentified work, uncertain entitlement or an unclear record of how the platform operates. This organisation distinguishes evidence that content was accessible from evidence of a particular party’s knowing conduct.
The third step tests alternative explanations. Could the same screen appear where a rightsholder lawfully shared a work? Does a fee concern technical storage space or access to particular content? Do the findings cover all files or a defined group of works? These are editorial control questions, not factual findings about additional events in the case. Their purpose is to limit excessive generalisation.
The fourth step checks the quality of preserved material. We propose retaining the original file, recording the tool and acquisition time, and keeping a separate working copy. The note should explain whether the record reproduces an entire event or only the observer’s visible fragment. Repeating a technical observation under the same conditions and reporting an unexpected result can also help. Such a result should remain in the report: it may reveal dependence on a user account, configuration or inspection time. These are suggestions for sound analytical documentation, not assertions about evidence actually used in this litigation.
Implications for designing procedures
Editorial inference: a platform’s legal analysis should include its actual operating process. Terms of service and the service’s name need to be compared with what happens after a credible notice. The analytical output might be a matrix covering the legal element, observed conduct, supporting evidence, counterargument and remaining uncertainty. This document communicates risk more effectively than a single categorical label.
The applicable law must also be assessed over time. Article 8 of the current Digital Services Act prohibits imposing a general obligation to monitor information. The historical judgment therefore cannot be treated as a universal instruction to filter all content on every contemporary service. [4]
Lessons from the analysis
- Examine the operator’s specific activities and knowledge instead of relying on the service’s name.
- Separate evidence that a work was accessible from evidence of a particular party’s involvement in infringement.
- Define the requested measure using established facts and the law applicable at the relevant time.
Limits of interpretation
An analysis of a historical judgment and selected evidential issues. It does not describe the current position of every platform or determine another dispute. Methodological proposals are identified as editorial inferences. No ECLI is supplied because it was not verified in an official source.
Sources and further reading
- 1Supreme Court of Poland, judgment of 27 May 2022 ↗
II CSKP 3/22
Official judgment and reasons; the operative part dismisses the cassation appeal. Party names are anonymised.
- 2Civil Chamber Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Poland, 3–4/2023 ↗
Omówienie II CSKP 3/22
Official account of the conditions of operator liability and the preventive claim.
- 3Beata Giesen, Civil liability for indirect infringements of copyrights - considerations incidental to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of “chomikuj.pl” ↗
DOI: 10.32027/MOP.25.8.17; Monitor Prawniczy 8/2025
Metadata and the public abstract were verified on the publisher’s website. No claims are attributed to the author from the unavailable full text.
- 4Digital Services Act (DSA) ↗
Rozporządzenie (UE) 2022/2065, art. 8; CELEX:32022R2065
Prohibition on general monitoring obligations: a contemporary context, not the basis of the historical judgment.