The paper deals with the issue of the compatibility of the Act on Special Powers of the Treasury and Their Exercise in Companies of Special Importance for Public Order or Public Security with the freedom of capital movements in the context of ECJ jurisprudence. The first part of the paper analyses the concept of the freedom of capital movements, as well as the concept of the golden share as a restriction on this freedom, on the basis of individual ECJ judgments. The next part covers legal solutions adopted in the Polish Act, namely its subjective scope, the rights of the Minister of Treasury in companies in which the State Treasury is entitled to a golden share, the nature of these rights, and the institution of Treasury observers. The final part of the paper examines the compatibility of the golden shares model adopted by the Polish legislator with ECJ jurisprudence. In particular, the authors seek to predict what the ECJ would hold if the European Commission were to bring an infringement case against Poland. This analysis deals with the following issues: the Polish Act as a restriction on the freedom of capital movements, the possible justifications of this restriction and the proportionality of the golden shares model adopted by Poland. As their final conclusion, the authors express the view that the Polish provisions governing the State Treasury's golden shares in principle conform with the ECJ's guidelines, although some features of the Polish golden share system can be questioned.

Article 9 of the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 requires parties to adopt measures for the ex situ conservation of biodiversity. Within the European Union this has been implemented by the Zoos Directive. The Directive requires zoos and aquariums to adopt a conservation role. Zoos may comply with the Directive by undertaking research from which conservation benefits accrue. However, most current zoo research is concerned with behaviour, environmental enrichment, nutrition and reproduction, and is therefore largely irrelevant to ex situ conservation. It is unlikely that zoos will increase their output of conservation relevant research because most do not have appropriate resources. Furthermore, as an alternative to undertaking research, a zoo may comply with the Directive by engaging in training, information exchange or captive breeding. Most, if not all, zoos already engage in at least one of these activities and therefore may comply with the Directive by doing nothing.