competition | In Principle

The president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has declared war on sellers unfairly raising prices of products during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the instruments proposed by the regulator in combating this pathology is establishment by the Ministry of Development of maximum prices and margins on products essential from the perspective of consumers’ interests (a change included in the recent amendment to the Anti-Crisis Act). On this occasion it is worth reviewing the authority vested in the president of UOKiK to regulate product prices under current law.

The amendment to the Anti-Crisis Act includes proposals drafted by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), intended to increase the financial security of households, ensure access to vital goods and services, and combat price speculation and unjustified increases.

In light of the difficulties associated with the coronavirus epidemic, and joining the global trend under the hashtag #flattenthecurve, competition authorities around the world, including Poland, are introducing, more or less officially, extraordinary operating procedures to avoid spreading the coronavirus. This can have a major impact on proceedings before these authorities, including filing and consideration of applications seeking approval of concentrations.

From 1 June 2020 the regulations on prohibited contractual provisions (abusive clauses), so far applicable only to consumers, will in certain situations also apply to sole traders. This change will generate many practical problems.

A new regulation, Art. 385(5) of the Civil Code, enters into force on 1 June 2020. It expands the application of provisions on abusive clauses to cover sole traders. This provision may have repercussions under the Contractual Advantage Act. The competition authority may treat the use of abusive clauses by an entity holding a contractual advantage in contracts with sole traders as abuse of a contractual advantage.

An interesting ruling has been handed down in Italy in a case involving Facebook’s violation of the collective interests of consumers and data protection. The court held, contrary to common opinion and the social media site itself, that Facebook is not free.

A competition compliance programme should protect an undertaking against commission of violations prosecuted by the competition authority. This applies to anticompetitive arrangements between competitors, or between suppliers and distributors, as well as abuse of a dominant position. Such infringements are threatened by punishment of up to 10% of an undertaking’s annual turnover.

New regulations on payment gridlock entered into force on 1 January 2020, via an amendment to the Act Combatting Excessive Delays in Commercial Transactions of 8 March 2013, the Civil Procedure Code, and the Unfair Competition Act. How will the new rules affect compliance in companies?

Contemporary competition law is built on two pillars: faith in the liberal market economy and faith in economic analysis. But in many countries in the West, including Poland, this faith is clearly dying. How will competition law look in the third decade of the 21st century, and will the current situation inevitably lead to changes in the principles governing enforcement of competition law?

According to Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law and EC directives, the principle of proportionality and equal treatment must be observed when selecting contractors in public procurement proceedings. Clearly, the Public Procurement Office and National Appeals Chamber have an obligation to evaluate public procurement proceedings in terms of these principles. However, as complaints about breach of competition regulations in tenders are submitted to the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), it is not clear whether this institution is required to refer to these principles.

A judgment of the Supreme Court overruling a decision of the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) does not apply to all participants in an agreement restricting competition. If a cassation appeal by one of them has been rejected or the Supreme Court has refused to accept it for examination, the case is irrevocably closed, regardless of how the proceedings continue and whether the decision of the president of UOKiK is ultimately upheld.

For the first time, the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) is conducting antimonopoly proceedings concerning competition-restricting agreements not only concerning businesses, but also persons managing them. This is a milestone in the history of enforcement of competition law in Poland. An outline of the rules regarding liability of persons managing a business and business enterprise in the context of prohibited agreements follows.