English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The commented judgement concerns to a very important issue of dealing the earmarked subsides rates given to non-public preschools by the local municipality. As it was mentioned by the Supreme Court in its judgement, according to Article 90 (2b) of the Educational System Act for the need of counting the amount due for non-public preschools earmarked subsidy all the costs of public preschools should be also taken into consideration and covered from the financial resources collected on the assigned bank accounts which are included in Article 223 of the Public Finance Act. According to the regulation (as the original wording says) the subsidies for non-public preschools are dedicated for an each pupil and they stand at min. 75% drafted by the local municipality of current expenditures incurred by public preschools. Therefore, only the expenditures that are drafted by the municipality should be taken into consideration just for counting the amount of subsidies.

Glosa krytyczna do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 27 października 2017 r. (IV CSK 732/16)