• Orange Polska, SGI, Vex.
• These companies have been subject to court judgements in cases concerning UOKiK's consumer protection decisions.

Orange Polska - ref. XVII AmA 54/17

The first judgment concerns the decision of August 2017. UOKiK found that Orange Polska had infringed the collective interest of consumers. It concerned radio, television and outdoor advertisements on billboards relating to Neostrada Superpromotion and Geopromotion for Neostrada. The operator enticed customers with low monthly charges, but did not provide reliable information about an additional charge which consumers without a fixed landline had to pay. This fee was intended to compensate the operator for the maintenance of the line. The authority decided that there was no clear information about the need to incur additional costs and many people might have thought that the price of Neostrada was lower.

UOKiK imposed a fine of over PLN 16 million on Orange Polska.

In April 2019, the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection upheld the decision of the Office with regard to the use of questioned practices, but reduced the fine to over PLN 13 million. In the oral justification of the decision, the court stated that the President of the Office was right to believe that the advertising might have been unclear to consumers. Moreover, radio advertising did not provide any information on additional costs associated with not having a landline phone. The court reduced the fine due to the fact that these practices were used during the pre-contractual period.

SGI - ref. I NSK 17/18

Another judgement concerned a decision of July 2014. UOKiK stated that SGI used 33 provisions entered in the register of prohibited clauses in its contracts concluded with consumers. The authority considered such an action to be a practice infringing the collective interest of consumers and ordered annexation of contracts concluded with consumers. The company specialises in the construction of flats and apartments.

Despite the fact that the company was not a party to any proceedings for declaring the contested provisions illegal, in October 2015 the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection dismissed the company's appeal. The company challenged the decision only in so far as it concerned the removal of the effects of the infringement. The court held that, in such a situation, it could not examine whether the actions of SGI actually constituted an unlawful practice. 

In February 2017, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the arguments presented by the lower court and partially overturned the decision.

The Office lodged a cassation appeal in which it indicated that the uncontested part of the decision had become final. In February 2019, the Supreme Court issued a verdict which overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court pointed out that the scope of the appeal against the decision determines the limits of the court's examination of the case and the Court of Appeal must have decided that SGI had engaged in a practice violating the collective interest of consumers.

Vex - ref. XVII AmA 41/18

The third judgement concerns Vex's appeal against a UOKiK’s decision of July 2018. Proceedings against the Wrocław debt collection agency were initiated in November 2016. The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection received many complaints from people who felt intimidated by the company's activities. In order to force consumers to pay their debts, Vex put pressure on them, which is an illegal and aggressive market practice. The company used various methods to do this. It sent text messages and e-mails to consumers, threatening them with a debt collectors’ a visit late in the day. The company contacted neighbours, family and employer without the debtor's consent. Moreover, Vex did not provide full information about the amount of debt in e-mails, nor did it clearly identify the trader to whom consumers were in arrears.

The President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection ordered the company to cease the use of illegal debt collection practices and imposed a penalty of PLN 20 thousand (PLN 20 122).

In May 2019, the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection dismissed the company's appeal.

The Court stated that there was no doubt that Vex had engaged in an aggressive market practice and that its actions were likely to create a sense of threat to the consumer and their family and friends. In the opinion of SOKiK, harassment of third parties without consent of the debtor who is subject to debt recovery proceedings violates their dignity and privacy. The Court found that the penalty imposed on the company was proportionate to the infringements found. The ruling is not legally binding.

Database of judgements

Since November 2015, a database of court judgments has been available on UOKIK's website. It contains information on all decisions concerning competition-restricting practices, concentration control, infringement of collective consumer interest and cases concerning clauses recognised as prohibited (in which the plaintiff was the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection). The database is available in the "Judgements” (“Wyroki”) tab on the UOKiK website: http://decyzje.uokik.gov.pl/bp/wyroki.nsf. Details of the principles of publication of judgements can be found in the document: Zasady informowania o sprawowaniu sądowej kontroli nad decyzjami prezesa UOKiK (Principles of informing about the exercise of judicial control over the decisions of the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)).

Additional information for the media:

Press Office UOKiK
pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warszawa
Tel. 22 55 55 60 246
E-mail: biuroprasowe@uokik.gov.pl
Twitter: @UOKiKgovPL