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)

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

Similar Items

Intersection between the activities of two regulators – shall prior actions taken by the National Telecoms Regulator exclude the ability to intervene by the Competition Authority?Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 March 2010 –Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (Ref. No. III SK 41/09)
by: Szymon Syp
Published: (2011-11-01)

Is the forcing of services on suppliers an abuse of a dominant position? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 February 2009 – DROP (Ref. No. III SK 31/08)
by: Anna Piszcz
Published: (2010-11-01)

What does an obligation to purchase “green energy” mean? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 5 July 2007 – Green energy (Ref. No. III SK 13/07)
by: Filip Elżanowski
Published: (2008-11-01)

Does an undertaking’s reputation affect its market power on the relevant market? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 2 April 2009 – PPKS (Ref. No. III SK 30/08)
by: Rafał Stankiewicz
Published: (2010-11-01)

The control of Polish courts over the infringements of procedural rules by the national competition authority. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 19 August 2009 – Marquard Media Polska (Ref. No. III SK 5/09)
by: Maciej Bernatt
Published: (2010-11-01)

The legal status of an undertaking – should local governments be treated more favourably in relation to the penalties for breaching Polish antitrust law? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 5 January 2007 – City Ostrołęka (Ref. No. III SK 16/06)
by: Maciej Bernatt
Published: (2008-11-01)

Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)
by: Joanna Jeżewska
Published: (2010-11-01)

A gloss to the Supreme Court Judgment of 5 March 2019, IV KK 484/17
by: Marta Kubica
Published: (2020-01-01)

CRITICAL GLOSS TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF 29 AUGUST 2019 (FILE REF. NO. I OSK 657/19)
by: Stanisław Bułajewski
Published: (2020-07-01)

Critical gloss to the judgment of the SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of 18 November 2020 (file ref. No. I OSK 1927/18)
by: Marcin Adamczyk
Published: (2021-07-01)

Shall selective, above-cost price cutting in the newspaper market be qualified as anticompetitive exclusion? Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 19 August 2009 – Marquard Media Polska (Ref. No. III SK 5/09)
by: Konrad Kohutek
Published: (2010-11-01)

Judgment-Rationale Inconsistency In The U.S. Supreme Court
by: Hitt, Matthew P.
Published: (2014)

When will the imposition of the requirement to co-finance the construction of necessary facilities constitute an abuse of a dominant position? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 5 January 2007 – Kolej Gondolowa (Ref. No. III SK 17/06)
by: Konrad Kohutek
Published: (2008-11-01)

Does a selection of contractors in a public tender constitute an infringement of a prohibition of competition restricting agreements? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 April 2007 – STALEXPORT – TRANSROUTE (Ref. No. III SK 3/07)
by: Rafał Poździk
Published: (2008-11-01)

A Departure from a Formalistic Approach in the Assessment of Restrictive Vertical Agreements in Favour of a More EconomicsBased Approach? Case Comment to the Supreme Court Judgment of 15 May 2014 (Ref. No. III SK 44/13)
by: Małgorzata Sieradzka
Published: (2015-08-01)

Automatic Extraction of Gist of Chinese Judgments of the Supreme Court
by: Chen, Kuan-Chun, et al.
Published: (2018)

Lack of a Price Reduction Despite a Decrease in Service Quality as an Unfair Price and Abuse of a Dominant Position. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Supreme Court of 13 July 2012, Autostrada Malopolska (Ref. No. III SK 44/11)
by: Elżbieta Krajewska
Published: (2013-11-01)

Wide scope of administrative discretion justified by features of telecommunications market. Case comment to the judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 2 April 2009 – Telekomunikacja Polska SA v the President of the Electronic Communications Office (Ref. No. III SK 28/08)
by: Małgorzata Kozak
Published: (2010-11-01)

Due Process Rights in Polish Antitrust Proceedings. Case comment to the Judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 3 October 2013 – PKP Cargo S.A. v. President of the Office of Competition and Consumers Protection (Ref. No. III SK 67/12)
by: Dariusz Aziewicz
Published: (2015-08-01)

Was the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment correct in the Founders Hill case?
by: Mdlalose, Sibusiso
Published: (2014)

What is the link between Article 6 Section 3a of the Energy Law Act and Article 490 of the Civil Code regarding the right of a grid operator to suspend the supply of electricity? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court Judgment of 5 June 2007 – GZE (Ref No. III SK 11/07)
by: Michał Będkowski-Kozioł
Published: (2008-11-01)

The very relevant market.Case comment to the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 22 April 2010 – Interchange fee(Ref. No. VI ACa 607/09)
by: Katarzyna Tosza
Published: (2011-11-01)

Analysis on Inventive Step Requirement for Patent-Based on U.S. Cases and Judgments Issued by Taiwan Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court
by: Tang, Shu-Han, et al.
Published: (2013)

Was the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment in CSARS v Founders Hill correct?
by: Jama, Asanda
Published: (2014)

Gratuitous transfer of ownership of energy transmission infrastructure as an abuse of a dominant position. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 16 October 2008 – Kolej Gondolowa (Ref. No. III SK 2/08)
by: Antoni Bolecki
Published: (2009-11-01)

Should a fee for mobile phone number portability be determined solely by subscriber preferences? Comments to the judgments of the Court of Competition and Consumers Protection of 8 January 2007 (Ref. No. XVII AmT 29/06) and 6 March 2007 (Ref. No. XVII AmT 33/06) – Portability fee
by: Marlena Wach
Published: (2008-11-01)

Are the rights and obligations arising from a license transferable under Article 40 of the Privatization and Commercialization Act?Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of November 20, 2008 (Ref. No. III SK 13/08).
by: Ilona Bankiewicz, et al.
Published: (2011-08-01)

A Study on Strict Liability of Land Registration Damages - Focus on Judgments of the Supreme Court
by: YEN,CHIA-LING, et al.
Published: (2017)

The Birth and Development of Confession: Focus on the Criminal Judgments of Supreme Court in Early Republic of China
by: Chan, Chao Chin, et al.
Published: (2013)

The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06)
by: Rajmund Molski
Published: (2008-11-01)

A courier service as a postal universal service – can a court asses the correctness of a legal qualification of a service of a courier company that was not contested by the company in an earlier decision taken by the postal regulator? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 April 2007 – Courier services (Ref. No. III SK 2/07)
by: Agata Jurkowska
Published: (2008-11-01)

Prohibition of cockfighting. Case note on the judgment 163/2018 of National Supreme Court of Justice (Mexico)
by: Brenda Yesenia Olalde Vázquez
Published: (2019-01-01)

A Study on Duty of Care of Corporate Directors─Focusing on the Supreme Court Judgments of the State of Delaware─
by: Hui-Ling Chang, et al.
Published: (2010)

Gloss to the Supreme Administrative Court judgment of 24 January 2018, II OSK 878/16
by: Sławomir Łukasz Zwolak
Published: (2021-06-01)

SkIndia Quiz 37: A persistent plaque in the pubic region
by: Lalit Kumar Gupta, et al.
Published: (2017-01-01)

The Study of the Sexual Crime in Penal Code 〝Will to Against〞 -Comment on No.4894 Penal Judgment(2010)of the Supreme Court
by: TSAI, SHU-RU, et al.
Published: (2018)

The Civil Registry of Children Born of Surrogacy Pregnancy: An Investigation Based on Recent Spain Supreme Court Judgments
by: Anna Cristina de Carvalho Rettore, et al.
Published: (2016-10-01)

More economic approach to exclusivity agreements: how does it work in practice?Case comment to the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 25 February 2010 –Lesaffre Polska(Ref. No. VI ACa 61/09)
by: Małgorzata Modzelewska de Raad
Published: (2011-11-01)

Antitrust Liability in the Context of Online Platforms. Case Comment to the Preliminary Ruling of the Court of Justice of 21 January 2016‘Eturas’ UAB v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba (Case C-74/14)
by: Bartosz Targański
Published: (2016-11-01)

Research on Income Taxation of Cross-Border Software License: Focus on the Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No.748 in 2015
by: I-Ning Cheng, et al.
Published: (2019)