Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)

The Supreme Court delivered on 3 March 2010 an important judgment that concerns competition in local markets for waste management. According to this ruling, the limitation by a municipality of the number of landfills where municipal waste can be disposed of does not constitute an abuse of its domina...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bartosz Targański
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Warsaw 2011-11-01
Series:Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Online Access:https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2011_4_5/Targanski_Freedom_of_competition.pdf
id doaj-9826d716af9b42a7846839ab91b797a0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9826d716af9b42a7846839ab91b797a02020-11-25T04:09:03ZengUniversity of WarsawYearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies1689-90242545-01152011-11-0145255260Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)Bartosz TargańskiThe Supreme Court delivered on 3 March 2010 an important judgment that concerns competition in local markets for waste management. According to this ruling, the limitation by a municipality of the number of landfills where municipal waste can be disposed of does not constitute an abuse of its dominant position. The Supreme Court held that such an action is justified by the Act on Waste1 whereby priority in determining the number of usable landfills should be given to the best technology available rather than distance from the place where waste was created. The judgment concerns the relationship between the Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection2 (herafter, Competition Act) and other Polish legislation – an issue which has been dealt with by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions already. The interest level of this particular case is high because it relates to the hierarchy of the responsibilities of municipalities for ensuring the competitiveness of local markets and their responsibility for environmental safety.https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2011_4_5/Targanski_Freedom_of_competition.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bartosz Targański
spellingShingle Bartosz Targański
Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
author_facet Bartosz Targański
author_sort Bartosz Targański
title Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)
title_short Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)
title_full Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)
title_fullStr Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)
title_full_unstemmed Freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 March 2010 – Katowice Commune(Ref. No. III SK 37/09)
title_sort freedom of competition or environmental safety – what should a municipality prioritize?case comment to the judgment of the supreme court of 3 march 2010 – katowice commune(ref. no. iii sk 37/09)
publisher University of Warsaw
series Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
issn 1689-9024
2545-0115
publishDate 2011-11-01
description The Supreme Court delivered on 3 March 2010 an important judgment that concerns competition in local markets for waste management. According to this ruling, the limitation by a municipality of the number of landfills where municipal waste can be disposed of does not constitute an abuse of its dominant position. The Supreme Court held that such an action is justified by the Act on Waste1 whereby priority in determining the number of usable landfills should be given to the best technology available rather than distance from the place where waste was created. The judgment concerns the relationship between the Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection2 (herafter, Competition Act) and other Polish legislation – an issue which has been dealt with by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions already. The interest level of this particular case is high because it relates to the hierarchy of the responsibilities of municipalities for ensuring the competitiveness of local markets and their responsibility for environmental safety.
url https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2011_4_5/Targanski_Freedom_of_competition.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT bartosztarganski freedomofcompetitionorenvironmentalsafetywhatshouldamunicipalityprioritizecasecommenttothejudgmentofthesupremecourtof3march2010katowicecommunerefnoiiisk3709
_version_ 1724423438429323264