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)

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)

In the judgment of 5 January 2007 (III SK 16/06), the Polish Supreme Court confirmed that the source, form and method of financing of fines imposed for the violation of Article 5 and Article 8 of the Act of 15 December 2000 on Competition and Consumer Protection (hereafter, Competition Act 2000) are...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Maciej Bernatt
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	University of Warsaw 2008-11-01
Series:	Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Online Access:	https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2008_1_1/M-Bernatt.pdf

Similar Items

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Study on the Regulation of Oligopolistic Undertakings under the Antitrust Law
by: Chu, Hua-chun, et al.
Published: (2007)

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)

Mycoflora of the Narew River and its tributaries in the stretch between Tykocin and Ostrołęka
by: Bazyli Czeczuga
Published: (2014-08-01)

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)
by: Bartosz Targański
Published: (2011-11-01)

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

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)

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)

Undertaker's Responsibility for Breach of Title Warranty Regarding Intellectual Property
by: Kenghao Liu, et al.
Published: (2012)

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)

Purposive Interpretation of the Term “Undertaking” as Defined Under Polish Antitrust Law – Some Observations
by: Piszcz Anna
Published: (2013-08-01)

ECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PLANNED DAMAGES ACTIONS FOR THE BREACHES OF EC ANTITRUST LAW
by: Elena Isac
Published: (2010-09-01)

CHANGES IN THE MIDDLE SECTION OF THE NAREW RIVER (BETWEEN OSTROŁĘKA AND ŁOMŻA) IN VIEW OF NATURAL FACTORS AND ANTHROPOGENIC PRESSURES
by: Bożena Grabińska, et al.
Published: (2014-04-01)

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)

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)

The Nature of Responsibility of an Undertaking in Antitrust Proceedings and the Concept of ‘Criminal Charge’ in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
by: Anna Błachnio-Parzych
Published: (2012-08-01)

The Judgment of the Death Penalty and the Life Imprisonment
by: Lee Shin-Fen, et al.
Published: (2011)

The Criteria of Penalty Judgments on Medical Negligence
by: Chun Pan, et al.
Published: (2011)

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

Penalty for ‘lawlessness of use’ of a building object – commentary (gloss) to the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 May 2017, II OSK 2283/15
by: Sławomir Zwolak
Published: (2019-01-01)

Analysis of Penalties Imposed on Organisations for Breaching Safety and Health Regulations in the United Kingdom
by: Andrew Oyen Arewa, et al.
Published: (2018-12-01)

Recent developments in national antitrust practice and case law: January 2012 – May 2013
by: Mario Siragusa
Published: (2014-03-01)

APPEAL, NON-APPLICATION, JUDICIAL REVIEW ON THE ACTS OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FOR ANTITRUST PURPOSES (NOTES TO THE CONSIGLIO DI STATO - ITALIAN SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT - JUDGMENT, SEC. VI, NO. 693/2014)
by: Hadrian Simonetti
Published: (2014-12-01)

Arbitration Agreements and Actions for Antitrust Damages Afterthe CDC Hydrogen Peroxide Judgment
by: Katarzyna Sadrak
Published: (2017-12-01)

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

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)

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)

A commentary on the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court 5th May 2016, II FSK 3354/15. A statement under penalty of perjury in tax returns
by: Rafał Bernat
Published: (2017-08-01)

The Legal Responsibilities of Tunneling:The Offenses of Breach of Trust and The Business Judgment Rule
by: An-Yu Cheng, et al.
Published: (2013)

January 2016 extensive summer melt in West Antarctica favoured by strong El Niño
by: Julien P. Nicolas, et al.
Published: (2017-06-01)

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