The present article is a short and very preliminary report about the Hellenistic coins found during excavations conducted by the team of the Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University at the agora of the ancient Nea Paphos in 2011–2019. The first archaeological research at the agora had been conducted in the late 1960s and 1970s by Kyriakos Nicolaou. The Jagiellonian University team, led by Ewdoksia Papuci-Władyka started to explore the agora area in 2011. There were at least 480 coins and coin flans found during the Polish excavations. Great part of them are minted in the Hellenistic Period. The group consists mainly of Ptolemaic coins (over 67%), but includes also Cypriot bronzes of the Zeus/Zeus type (20.5%), coins of Syro-Palestinian region (Seleucid, Hasmonean rulers – over 6%), Macedonian-Antigonid issues (3.8%), the coins from south-eastern Aegean and Asia Minor (1.6%) as well as others. Some preliminary observations concerning chronology and structure of the finds are presented.

This article analyses the judgment of the Supreme Court of Poland of 25 June 2020, in which the Court refused to recognise registered mail receipt forms issued by the authorities of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) as foreign official documents, despite the Public Prosecutor General and the claimant arguing to the contrary. The text attempts to show that the ruling is consistent with earlier Polish practice and the majority view in domestic literature. Still, the international jurisprudence shows that there is no clear rule of public international law that would make non-recognition of documents absolutely mandatory in such cases, and some exceptions could even support their recognition under special circumstances. Also, in similar cases foreign national courts do not always refuse recognition.

The article offers a revisited look at the classic jurisprudence of the ECtHR and CJEU concerning the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus from the perspective of the phenomenon of judicial dialogue. In this context, it aims to examine whether judicial dialogue contributes to the development of coherent jurisprudence and in consequence of effective judicial redress in cases involving unrecognised entities and individuals. It draws attention to the threats for both the international rule of law and the protection of rights of individuals resulting from inconsistencies within own jurisprudence of the respective court, as well as from lack of coherence in interpretation and application of the same rules of international law by different courts.