Poland’s Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK) and Court of Appeal (SA) have recently ruled on four competition protection cases. They involved the companies De’Longhi Polska, Grupa Inco, and BP Europa.

Here we present a summary of the most important of the rulings.

De’Longhi Polska

The first of the judgments concerns the imposition of penalties for a failure to provide information. In the course of proceedings, the Office often asks companies to submit data or documents that may be helpful in clarifying the matter under consideration. This applies not only to entities under investigation, but to all that may possess relevant information. Failure to respond can result in a financial penalty of up to 50 million euros. In September 2013, UOKiK fined De'Longhi Poland more than 200,000 PLN (ca. 50,000 EUR). The company did not provide information necessary to assess home appliance supplier BSH Sprzęt Gospodarstwa Domowego’s acquisition of competitor Zelmer. Poland’s Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK) upheld the decision. In May the Company appealed the ruling in the Court of Appeal (SA), which reduced the fine to 122,646 PLN (ca. 30,000 EUR), mainly because it was not proven whether and to what extent the failure to provide information affected the investigation.

Inco–Veritas (now the Grupa Inco)

UOKiK may also levy a penalty of up to 50 million euros for a failure to cooperate in an inspection. In November 2011 UOKiK fined Inco-Veritas more than 2 million PLN (ca. 500,000 EUR). After inspectors had commenced operations at the company, a manager attempted to remove from a laptop a document that showed the price of two dishwashing soaps and one brand of shoe polish had been fixed. For the attempt, UOKiK fined the company 2 million PLN (ca. 500,000 EUR). Both SOKiK and the Court of Appeal rejected the Authority’s arguments. They ruled that the employee had not failed to cooperate during the inspection because the file was not permanently deleted, but moved to the trash folder, from which it was recovered and therefore readable. Moreover, the inspectors received a paper version of the document. UOKiK filed a cassation appeal, which in April the Supreme Court (SN) considered justified. In its ruling, the Court stated that it is not important whether the file was deleted permanently or just moved to another location. The enterprise is required to actively cooperate in an inspection and should therefore immediately furnish the document. The act of denying UOKiK access to data should be construed as lack of cooperation. That a paper copy of the document was provided is immaterial because it was not possible to verify that it was identical to the electronic version. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration by SOKiK.

BP Europa

In December 2014, UOKiK fined BP Europa 20,000 PLN (ca. 5,000 EUR) for entering a concentration without the Authority’s approval. The concentration consisted in multiyear leases of petrol stations, a store and a restaurant from the company Jackiewicz and Partners. In March 2016, SOKiK dismissed the company’s appeal and backed UOKiK’s decision, agreeing that multiyear leases can be considered a form of concentration. In its justification, it wrote that the intention to acquire part ownership or other property rights of another undertaking should be reported to the Authority. It is immaterial whether these rights exist at the time of purchase, or are created as a result of legal action.

Adamek Bud-Chem Plus and Chemik HB

In July, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling on the companies Adamek Bud-Chem Plus and Chemik HB. The two were party to an agreement between paint producer Fabryka Farb and Lakierów Śnieżka and its 55 distributors. In December 2009, the Authority determined that the agreement was limiting competition. Courts of further instance confirmed UOKiK’s decision, stating that the arrangement promoted the standardisation of prices and collusion. An agreement between Śnieżka and Grupa Polskie Składy Budowlane, which operates a network of building materials wholesalers and home and garden retailers, was the one exception. In the court’s assessment, the latter functions in a manner similar to an agency, and in accordance with Community law, agency contracts are excluded  from the prohibition of competition restricting agreements.

The appeal procedure

An enterprise may appeal an UOKiK decision to SOKiK, and a SOKiK ruling, in turn, to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw. A cassation appeal from a Court of Appeal judgment can be filed with the Supreme Court.

Additional information for the media

Press Office, UOKiK
Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warsaw
Phone.: +48 22 827 28 92, +48 22 55 60 314, +48 22 55 60 430
E-mail: [SCODE]Yml1cm9wcmFzb3dlQHVva2lrLmdvdi5wbA==[ECODE]

Twitter: @UOKiKgovPL