UOKiK President Research Articles

The Soft law acts of the UOKiK President and their impact on determining the situation of an entrepreneur in anti-monopoly proceedings

Abstract With the adoption of the acquis communautaire, the Polish administration encountered a significant number of soft law acts issued by the EU administration and began to utilise them extensively. The systematic ‘hardening’ of soft law acts leads to a discrepancy between their formally non-binding status and their actual intended meaning and effects – often resembling ‘hidden directives’ or even more imperative measures, producing legal consequences and defining the legal situation of e.g. entrepreneurs. Consequently, it is proposed that soft law acts should be subject to autonomous judicial review in terms of both interpretation and annulment. The President of UOKiK may also issue official explanations and guidelines that fit the definition of soft law acts. Guidelines on the amounts of fines for entrepreneurs significantly impact the determination of their legal position, and judicial decisions increasingly refer to the methodology of setting fines specified therein without critical examination.

The Investigative Powers of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection and Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council: Selected Issues

Abstract Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018, to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, obliges Member States to harmonize the law governing, amongst others, the powers of national competition authorities, including investigative powers. The Act aimed at the transposition of this directive was passed in Poland with a significant delay. This article analyses the provisions of the Act of 16 February 2007 on competition and consumer protection, in force on 4 February 2021 (the deadline for the transposition of Directive 2019/1), regulating the investigative powers of the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), and the changes in the relevant scope adopted by the Act of 9 March 2023 amending the Act on competition and consumer protection and some other acts. The research problem includes determining whether the regulations that were in force between 4 February 2021 and 20 May 2023 governing the investigative powers of the UOKiK president, in connection with proceedings for infringement of the prohibition of competition-restricting practices, were in line with the requirements of Directive 2019/1 and whether the abovementioned amendment act removed any existing discrepancies.

Glosa do wyroku Sądu Unii Europejskiej z 9 lutego 2022 r. w sprawie T-791/19 – Sped-Pro S.A. przeciwko Komisji Europejskiej – „Zasada państwa prawnego a współpraca krajów członkowskich Unii Europejskiej w obszarze ochrony konkurencji”

The aim of this case comment is to discuss whether it was justified that the General Court in its judgment dated 9 February 2022 in the case Sped-Pro (T-791/19) annulled the European Commission’s Decision No. C(2019) 6099 final dated 12 August 2019 r. (case AT.40459) connected to the potential abuse by PKP Cargo of a dominant position on the market for rail freight in Poland. In this judgement, the General Court argued on the basis of the rule of law principle and applied analogically the judgment on the European Arrest Warrant. In this regard, the analysis starts with the rule of law principle, the judicial independence of courts and administrative authorities, the obligation of loyal cooperation between European Union and member states to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty, both in the light of Union law and European courts case law.The next part of this case comment attempts to assess whether the General Court was justified in analogically applying the judgement dated 25 VII 2018 r. C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality on the European Arrest Warrant in the field of European policy on competition. The analysis ends with the description of the practical consequences of the Commission’s finding that the President of UOKiK and the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection are not independent. In the last part of the text, the author also indicates the consequences of the proper implementation of the Directive ECN+ for analysing the scope of independence of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. The author indicates the necessity to separate in future analysis the issue of the independence of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (national administrative competition authority) and the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection, which in Polish is a common court.

PRAWNOKARNE ŹRÓDŁA INSPIRACJI W PRAWIE OCHRONY KONKURENCJI I KONSUMENTÓW

The article deals with the issue of referrals to the study of criminal law as sources of inspiration for the enforcement of public law rules of competition and consumer protection (Act of February 16, 2007, on Competition and Consumer Protection (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 275) (oukk)). It is now widely accepted in antitrust jurisprudence that although the liability of the parties to the proceedings before the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) is not of criminal nature, and fines imposed by the President of UOKiK are not penalties within the meaning of the Criminal Code, the rules of judicial verification of the correctness of UOKiK’s decisions imposing these sanctions should meet the requirements analogous to those applicable by a court adjudicating in a criminal case. However, while there is little doubt that antitrust authorities should be required to apply standards of protection of fundamental rights as derived from the study of criminal law and international sources (European Convention on Human Rights, Charter of Fundamental Rights), the issue of transferring to competition and consumer law other standards recognized in criminal law remains open. The current jurisprudence contains divergent positions on this issue. The Supreme Court emphasized that „there are no justified grounds for applying the provisions of the general part of the Penal Code under the regime of administrative liability” (case I NSK 4/18). On the other hand, it approved references by analogy to the solutions taken from the Criminal Code in the absence of similar provisions in the uokk (case I NSK 8/19) or in cases where competition law uses concepts taken from criminal law (case I NSK 62/18). The article presents both of the jurisprudence lines mentioned above. In addition, the article point outs issues of competition and consumer protection law in the case of which, in the author’s opinion, the use of concepts derived from the study of criminal law would be justified.

Ochrona konsumentów usług finansowych w Polsce. Efektywność systemu i perspektywy rozwoju

The paper brings brief description of the financial services customer protection model and its evolution in Poland. The efficiency of this three-fold model, where the responsibilities are distributed to the 3 agencies: Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), Financial Ombudsman (Rzecznik Finansowy), Competition and Customer Protection Office (UOKiK) is discussed. The author discusses the project of merging the institution of the Financial Ombudsman with UOKiK and puts forward the thesis that an idea more relevant to the current needs of protecting financial services customers in Poland would be to maintain the institution of the Financial Ombudsman and transfer some competences of the President of UOKiK to the Financial Ombudsman. Finally the author presents his recommendations for the improvement of the model with a call for the strengthening of the institution of Financial Ombudsman in Poland.

Can Coordination Between the Producer and the Distributor in the Process of Calculating Prices and Their Structure in the Tariff Process Be Regarded as Legally Prohibited, Having Regard to the Provisions of Sectorial Regulation and the Regulatory Practice? Case Comment to Decision of the President of UOKiK of 3 December 2020, DOK-5/2020

This is a case study analysis based on the decision No. DOK-5/2020 issued by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (hereinafter: UOKiK) of 3 December 2020. The main part of the text will be devoted to the analysis of the scope of competences of the President of Energy Regulatory Office (hereinafter: URE) (the NRA) and the President of UOKiK (the NCA) regarding the regulation of heat prices (taking into account Polish and EU doctrine and jurisprudence). In contrast to other publications on the relationship between the competences of the President of URE and the President of UOKiK in supervising the heat market, the paper will focus on the following issues: the process of exchanging information between generators and distributors, the practice of tariff proceedings before the President of URE and the role of the President of UOKiK in the process of tariffing heat prices. The conclusion of the text will be that due to the provisions of Polish energy law, the role of the President of URE in the tariff process, the public nature of tariff applications and approved tariffs, no unauthorised coordination of information exchange between heating companies is possible. The thesis will be supported by de lege ferenda arguments.

Odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorcy za niedostarczanie informacji i dokumentów na żądanie Prezesa UOKiK – kilka refl eksji po decyzji w sprawie Engie

The article contains an analysis of the solutions adopted in the Polish legal system governing the procedure for requesting information and documents by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (President of UOKiK). In the first part of the article, the author discusses the basic standards that should be met by a request of the UOKiK, with regard to the scope of the request and its purpose, taking into account, in particular, the guidelines which follow from EU case-law. The author considers the scope of the obligation under Article 50 Section 1 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (the Act), criticizing the solution that makes it impossible in practice to challenge the demands of the President of UOKiK without a risk of exposure to severe financial sanctions. The proposals for amendments of applicable regulations are also discussed, the aim of which would be to provide business undertakings with an adequate standard of protection of their fundamental rights in connect in with the procedure for submitting information and documents requested by the President of UOKiK. The second part of the article is devoted to issues concerning financial penalties for a breach of the obligation referred to in Article 50 Section 1 of the Act. The author discusses the current legal framework and indicates the need to introduce certain legislative changes in the future. The analysis also covers the practice of the Polish competition authority to impose penalties for a breach of the obligation under Article 50 Section 1 of the Act

Obowiązek notyfikacji zamiaru utworzenia wspólnego przedsiębiorcy

Przedmiot badań: Obowiązek notyfikacji zamiaru utworzenia wspólnego przedsiębiorcy Preze­sowi UOKiK w świetle przepisów ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów budzi liczne wątpliwości interpretacyjne, których nie można rozwiązać poprzez analogię do zasady przyjętej w rozporządzeniu Rady (WE) nr 139/2004. Oba rozwiązania istotnie się różnią zarówno w zakresie przedmiotowym, jak i podmiotowym.
 Cel badawczy: Celem opracowania jest zbadanie konstrukcji prawnej i przesłanek obowiązku notyfikacji zamiaru utworzenia wspólnego przedsiębiorcy funkcjonującego w obu reżimach praw­nych i ocena zasadności rozwiązań przyjętych w prawie polskim. W artykule przyjęto hipotezę, że obowiązek zgłoszeniowy w świetle przepisów ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów (uokk) został sformułowany zbyt szeroko. Art. 13 ust. 2 pkt 3 uokk wymusza bowiem konieczność zgłoszenia wspólnych przedsiębiorców niestanowiących formy koncentracji i jest oderwany od obowiązującej w prawie unijnym zasady wspólnej kontroli wspólnego przedsiębiorcy, którego utworzenie stanowi stan faktyczny koncentracji.
 Metoda badawcza: W celu weryfikacji przyjętej hipotezy badawczej zastosowano metodę analizy aktów prawnych oraz decyzji Komisji Europejskiej i Prezesa UOKiK. Do analizy rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 139/2004 oraz przepisów uokk wykorzystano także metodę formalno-dogmatyczną, a także metodę prawno-porównawczą.
 Wyniki: W artykule wykazano, że funkcjonujący w prawie polskim obowiązek zgłoszeniowy jest sformułowany zbyt szeroko, gdyż obejmuje wspólnych przedsiębiorców, których utworzenie de facto nie spełnia przesłanek koncentracji.

Obowiązek stosowania przez przedsiębiorców wewnętrznych procedur antykorupcyjnych w świetle projektu ustawy o jawności życia publicznego

Artykuł koncentruje się na zagadnieniu karania w projekcie ustawy o jawności życia publicznego. Szczególne zastrzeżenia dotyczą przyjęcia koncepcji karania za naruszenia ustawy sankcją administracyjną. Zjawisko korupcji ze względu na swoją karygodność i moralną naganność od lat było penalizowane prawem karnym. Nowy tryb sankcjonowania związany jest z potrzebą karania podmiotów zbiorowych, i to w sposób sprawny i efektywny. Niewątpliwie jednak i w prawie karnym odnaleźć można regulacje pozwalające pociągnąć do odpowiedzialności takie podmioty. Projektowana procedura wymierzania administracyjnej kary pieniężnej nie jest gwarancją efektywnego i szybkiego karania, a wręcz przeciwnie – konieczność zapewnienia gwarancji zbliżonych do prawa karnego czyni to postępowanie quasi-karnym. Pomijając już samą wysokość kary, która w górnej swojej granicy może sięgać 10 mln zł, wątpliwości budzi także procedura jej wymierzania. Na pierwszym etapie szef Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego (CBA) wymierza karę pieniężną, a jeżeli przedsiębiorca jej nie uiści dobrowolnie, to szef CBA kieruje wniosek o ukaranie do prezesa Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK). Pozycja prezesa za sprawą przyjętych rozwiązań została jednak sprowadzona do roli egzekutora. Niewątpliwie kwestie przeciwdziałania procedurom korupcyjnym leżą w kompetencji CBA, a nie prezesa UOKiK, stąd niezrozumiała jest przyjęta w ustawie konstrukcja. Konkluzja artykułu sprowadza się do tezy o konieczności przemyślenia przez projektodawcę modelu karania za naruszenie procedur antykorupcyjnych.

Postępowanie w sprawie praktyk nieuczciwie wykorzystujących przewagę kontraktową na rynku rolno-spożywczym jako nowy obszar aktywności administracji publicznej

The article is an attempt at analyzing selected provisions of the Act on Counteracting Unfair Use of Contractual Advantage in Agricultural and F ood Products turning to whether there is public interest in the need of public authority interrogation in contractual relationships (Civil Law) in B2B relations in the food and agricultural market and whether this material basis for this interference has been properly defined. “Public interest” as an objective of counteracting practices that unfairly uses the contractual advantage of suppliers or buyers, should be considered on the axiological basis of the Act on competition and consumer protection, in the context of ensuring consumer welfare and thus food security of the country. The material prerequisites of the President of UOKiK’s [Office for the Protection of Competition and Consumers] conduct in cases of abuse of a contractual advantage were burdened with a large degree of indeterminacy, entrusting to the authority their clarification with prejudice to the principle of predictability of state bodies’ activities.

Umowy dotyczące hipotecznych kredytów „walutowych” tak zwanych frankowych w „istotnych poglądach w sprawie” wydawanych przez Prezesa UOKiK

Agreements regarding mortgage loans CHF loans in “significant views in the matter” issued by the President of UOKiK the Office of Competition and Consumer ProtectionThe article discusses the institution of the “significant view in the matter” issued by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in cases pending before common courts in the field of competition and consumer protection introduced in April 2016 to the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection Article 31d of the Act. The first part of the article describes the nature of issued views and the premises enabling their issuance by the President of UOKiK. The second part of the article focuses on the views expressed by the President of UOKiK on cases pending before common courts regarding foreign currency loans CHF loans together with the main elements of justification and conclusions, proposals of adjudicating the case by the court. The study refers to important views on the issue of currency loans CHF issued by the President of UOKiK, published on the website of the office: www.uokik.gov.pl.

Between exercising of public powers and economic activity. The latest findings on the notion of entrepreneur made in the process of judicial review of the decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection

Aim: There is no doubt that public authorities may be directly or indirectly involved in economic activity. A traditional way of distinguish state activity which is not subject to the rules of the market is to decide when the state acts as public authority. In case of state activity two category of situations should be distinguished: these where the state is engaged in an economic activity (sphere of dominium) and these when the state acts by exercising of public powers (sphere of imperium). In the opinion of the author of the article, the distinction between imperium and dominium is still relevant. According to the Competition and Consumer Protection Act of February 16, 2007, an entrepreneur is inter alia natural and legal person, as well as an organisational unit without a legal status to which legislation grants legal capacity, organising or providing public utility services which do not constitute economic activity in the meaning of the provisions on freedom of economic activity. The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection found that public authorities exercising their administrative powers (sphere of imperium) may be classified as entrepreneurs. In the recent decisions which were subject of judicial review the President of UOKiK decided that the National Health Fund – a state authority responsible for organization and management of health care services in Poland – is an entrepreneur in the meaning of the Polish law (act on competition and consumer protection). The aim of this article is to answer the question whether competition rules should be applied to the state activity in the imperium sphere. This article will focus on the notion of an entrepreneur (undertaking) in polish and EU law in the context of the activity of the state. Design / Research methods: The objective of the article is achieved through doctrinal analysis of the relevant rules of the Polish and EU law and analysis of the recent decisions issued by the President of UOKiK, as well as judgments of the EU Courts, concerning the possibility of qualification of the widely understood state as an undertaking (entrepreneur).Conclusions / findings: From the analysis of the same concept applied in polish and EU law clearly follows that public entities acting ‘by exercising public power’ or ‘in their capacity as public authorities’ (imperium sphere) should not be classified as entrepreneurs (undertakings) in the meaning of competition law. The main scientific value added of the article are the conclusions that the provisions on the protection of competition should be applicable only to the activity of the state in the dominium sphere and that the definition of an entrepreneur and business (economic) activity should be connected to the existence of a market. Originality / value of the article: Paper should be interesting for public authorities, as well as for lawyers, dealing with problems concerning of qualification of public entities in the context of the competition law. The results of the research may be applied for example in the decisions that would be taken by the President of UOKiK. The consequences of application of the findings of the research to practice may be a change of approach to qualification of public entities in the context of the provision of competition law.

“Anti-competition agreements” and legal options to pursue claims for damages before common courts

Aim: In the article the situation is discussed where the refusal by an energy supplier to connect other companies to join the network, will be treated (in Poland and the EU) as a prohibited abuse of a dominant position by this company. The identification of such practices is important because EU sectoral legislation does not contain specific provisions requiring companies managing and operating oil pipelines to conclude agreements with other companies to join their networks or to deliver oil.Design / Research methods: The aim of the article was achieved through doctrinal analysis of the relevant Polish and EU law and by analyzing guidelines issued by EU bodies. In the study, also functional analysis is applied, allowing to examine the functioning of the law.Conclusions / findings: Access to oil pipelines and the sale of their transmission capacity are determined by the network owners themselves. These owners are private oil companies, not being regulated by European Union law. The obligation to connect other entities to its own network by power transmission companies in Poland results only from the general provisions of Polish competition law. It is shown that refusal to access the network is a manifestation of prohibited abuse of dominant position, which is prohibited whenever the dominant activity is detrimental to allocation efficiency. In particular this concerns the case when the supply of goods or services objectively necessary for effective competition on the market in general is denied, and leads to the elimination of effective competition in the market and/or harm to consumers.Originality / value of the article: The article discusses the reasons for the legal obligation for energy companies involved in the transmission of crude oil to connect other companies into their own network. This obligation significantly influences the business conducted by the transmission companies.Implications of the research: The presented research results are useful for assessing decisions issued by the President of UOKiK (the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) and in the judgments of Polish common courts and EU courts.

Naruszenie praw konsumenta w reklamie usług finansowych

Niniejsza publikacja dotyczy obowiązków informacyjnych, które ustawodawca narzuca kredytodawcom i pośrednikom kredytowym już na etapie reklamy kredytów konsumenckich. Obowiązki te, wynikające z ustawy o kredycie konsumenckim, nie zawsze jednak są respektowane przez instytucje finansowe, świadczące tego typu usługi. Wnioski takie można wyciągnąć przede wszystkim z analizy ostatnich decyzji Prezesa UOKiK, który wskazał na liczne nieprawidłowości w tym zakresie. W niniejszym opracowaniu omówione zostaną obowiązków informacyjne w zakresie oferowania usług kredytowych zawarte w ustawie o kredycie konsumenckim.

A Departure from a Formalistic Approach in the Assessment of Restrictive Vertical Agreements in Favour of a More Economics-Based Approach? Case Comment to the Supreme Court Judgment of 15 May 2014 (Ref. No. III SK 44/13)

The discussed judgment of the Supreme Court is in line with its other jurisprudence with respect to the classification of price agreements as practices restricting competition under Article 6(1)(1) of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 1 of 16 February 2007 (hereafter: Competition Act 2007). Despite the firm stance taken on the assessment of price agreements by the UOKiK President, the Supreme Court once again emphasizes the necessity for an economics-based approach 2. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, not every vertical price-fixing agreement results in a threat to the public interest. A departure from a rigorous application of the ban on competition restricting practices (Article 6(1)(1) of Competition Act 2007) to all types of vertical agreements has an impact on the application of legal provisions governing the imposition of financial penalties. Considering the optional nature of fines, the question arises about their purpose in cases where the public interest has not been jeopardized.

Key Legislative and Jurisprudential Developments of Polish Antitrust Law in 2012

This article has two objectives. First, it presents the most important developments of Polish antitrust legislation of 2012. These include recent amendments to legal provisions on judicial antitrust proceedings contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, and some novel issues in the area of non-binding guidelines of the Polish NCA, the UOKiK President. Second, the article introduces key developments in Polish competition law jurisprudence of 2012. It characterises selected rulings delivered by the Polish Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals in Warsaw and the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection. Judgments are divided according to their subject matter.

Spór o homeopatię (czyli o władzę nad rynkiem)

The article discusses the effects of rulings issued by the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK) and the Court of Appeal concerning homeopathy upon the scope of the powers of medical self-government to regulate markets. The author provides an analysis of these powers on the basis of competition law, since the latter intersects with pharmaceutical law and laws regulating the professional activities of doctors. The author draws attention to the fact that depriving the competition authority – the UOKiK President – of the power to scrutinize the activities of professional self-government bodies may lead to adverse effects for competition and consumers protection. These would consist of the limitation of the freedom of market access of undertakings as well as limit consumers’ free choice to access legally sold products and services.

What Are the Directions in the Enforcement of Polish Competition Law – Review of a Series of New Polish Soft Law Guidelines

A recent amendment to the Act of Competition and Consumer Protection of 2007, which entered into force in January 2015, brought with it a number of changes to the Polish competition law system introducing, among other things, several new legal institutions. This development created the need to issue new soft law guidelines in order to give some clarity as to their application. At the same time, certain pre-existing soft law guidelines of the Polish Competition Authority – the President of the UOKiK – needed updating in order to make them applicable to the new legal conditions. The aforementioned legislative changes were accompanied by an official UOKiK policy statement of openness and transparency. Given this objective, the UOKiK President provided a set of best practices for the Authority, in particular as regards its relations with undertakings. The aim of this paper is to critically review the newly adopted guidelines as well as modifications made to preexisting soft laws. It emerges from this analysis that although the issuance of any sort of guidelines should be welcomed in general, since it improves legal certainty as to the Authority’s future conduct in individual cases, a number of problems remains which have not been sufficiently or in fact properly addressed.

Is the Parallel Competence Set Out in Regulation 1/2003 Totally Clear? Case Comment to the Preliminary Ruling of the Court of Justice of 3 May 2011 Tele 2 v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (Case C-375/09)

With a motion dated 28th of April 2005 submitted to the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (in Polish: Prezes Urzedu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentow; hereafter, UOKiK President), Tele2 Polska Sp. z o.o. (currently: Netia S.A., hereafter, Applicant) requested the initiation of antitrust proceedings against Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (hereafter, TP). The Polish incumbent, TP, was alleged to have engaged in practices restricting competition covered by Article 8(1) and 8(2)(5) of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection of 15th December 2000 (hereafter, Competition Act 2000) and in Article 82 of the Treaty establishing European Community (hereafter, TEC), presently, Article 102 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (hereafter, TFEU).

Differentiation between Entrepreneurs (on the Basis of the Public Task Criterion) and its Legal Consequences: Case Comment to the Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 21 April 2011 President of Office of Competition and Consumer Protection v Polish Football Association and Canal+ Sp. Z.O.O. (Ref. no. VI ACa 996/10)

The discussed judgment was rendered in relation to the dispute between the President of the Polish Competition Authority (hereafter, UOKiK President) on the one hand and the Polish Football Association and the broadcaster Canal+ on the other hand. These two undertakings were party to an agreement on exercising media rights to football games of the two highest classes of the Polish league. The core of the dispute consisted of the possibility of deeming the pre-emption right reserved for Canal+ as a contractual provision restricting competition. The Courts involved were also forced to answer the question whether performing tasks of a public service character justified a decrease in the fine imposed by the competition authority.