The Court of Competition and Consumer Protection confirmed that PGNiG S.A. has partially failed to comply with the decision of the UOKiK. The company has failed to remove restrictions concerning the reductions in the volume of gas ordered from the contracts with its customers, which it was under an obligation to do.

In December 2013, the UOKiK adopted a decision in which it proved on the balance of probabilities that PGNiG S.A (the Polish oil and gas mining company) abused its dominant position. At that point, the company voluntarily undertook to amend the contracts concluded with its customers, the amendments in question including the lifting of restrictions concerning the reduction of the volume of gaseous fuel and contracted capacity for the consecutive contract years.

In October 2014, the Competition Authority instigated audit proceedings which proved that PGNiG S.A. has failed to fully comply with the aforementioned decision. The company undertook to exclude the impugned provisions from the contracts; however, it also proposed replacement provisions having a similar effect to the previous ones. If the customers accepted the proposed terms and conditions, they would have been under an obligation to purchase from PGNiG S.A. a fixed minimum amount of gas, set at a level equivalent to that specified in the order for gas made back in 2014.

The maximum penalty for failure to comply with the decision of the Competition Authority amounts to EUR 10 thousand per each day of delay. A penalty in the amount of EUR 5 thousand for each of the 490 days of delay has been imposed on PGNiG S.A. The total amount of the penalty was EUR 2,450,000.00, i.e. more than PLN 10 million.

The entrepreneur appealed against the decision. In March 2017, the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection dismissed the appeal in its entirety and upheld the decision of the Competition Authority. In its oral statement of reasons, the court stated that the decision must be enforced in accordance with the contents thereof. In the view of the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection, since the manner in which the decision in question was to be complied with was clearly described in its summary, one may not accept the actions taken by PGNiG S.A., which sought to replace the impugned provisions with new ones which were likewise inconsistent with the obligation imposed upon the company. In addition, the court also held that the amount of the penalty itself was also determined in an appropriate manner.

Additional information for the media:

Press Office of the UOKiK
pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warsaw
Phone: 22 55 60 430
E-mail: [SCODE]Yml1cm9wcmFzb3dlQHVva2lrLmdvdi5wbA==[ECODE]

Twitter: @UOKiKgovPL