Anti-Trust Law in Poland

This essay addresses a case involving National Forest (NF) and its violation of Polish antitrust law. NF, holding a 70% market share, imposed onerous contract terms on a furniture producer. The essay argues that NF abused its dominant position, violating Article 8 of the Antimonopoly Act of 1987, which ...Read More

Anti-Trust Law 1
Anti Trust Law in Poland
In this case, National Forest has violated the principles of Anti-trust (Antimonopoly Act) 1987, which
prohibits specific practices and monopolistic agreements. Article 8 of the Act (Błachucki,
2013)prohibits actions, which “impose, without any reasonable explanation, onerous contract terms
that yield undue benefits to economic unit that imposes them” The action against NF therefore can be
brought against NF by the private enforcement of Competition law wherein the dominant company
has brought in restrictive trade practice by imposing unfair terms and conditions.
In the present case, NF has abused its dominant position under the Competition Law by imposing
unnecessary conditions on the furniture production business, thereby attracting the provisions of the
Act. In this case, since the market share of NF is 70%, (Chwaliński, 2015) it can be characterized as
having a dominant share in the market. Hence, imposing onerous terms, or what the party conceives to
be onerous is prohibited under the Competition Law of Poland. The abuse of dominance occurs in the
contracts having both objective and subjective dimensions. While subjective onerous contracts
include what is perceived by the party, objective onerous terms include where the party would not
accept the terms under competitive market conditions. (Błachucki, 2013). The claimant in this case,
did not accept the conditions of the contract and hence was willing to contract with NF if there were
no conditions attached to it. The case of Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe Porty Lotnicze
(Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe Porty Lotnicze , 2010) is an apt one where the Court of Appeals
assessed as to what constitutes onerous agreement terms and conditions. The court while holding that
application to equivalent transactions with third parties those terms and conditions which are not
homogenous agreement terms and conditions, thus creating for these parties diversified conditions of
competitions”.
Although in the above cases, abuse of dominant position refers to cases of competition, the same can
be applied to restrictive trade practices under Unfair Market Practices Act, 2007. The Civil chamber
of the Supreme Court dealt with the question of unfair practices in the case of Skarb Panstwa-
Nadlesnictwo Dobrzejewice V Torunskie Przedsiebiorstwo Przemyslu Drzewnego SA, (III CZP,
2008)wherein conditions were laid down that the parties enter into a contract thereby agreeing to write
off the bad debts. The Claimant stated that the contract be held invalid as it led to abuse of dominant
position by the defendant. While the case was dismissed by the lower court, the matter was taken up
by the Supreme Court. Here it was held that while abuse of dominant position is equivalent to
restricted competition, holding any legal activity as ineffective would mean protection of private
interests which is violated as a result of abuse of dominant position.
In answer to the second part of the question, an action can be against by applying the provisions of the
Combating Unfair Competition Act, 2003 as it refers to the enforcement of competition law in Poland.

Anti-Trust Law 2
References
Błachucki, M. (2013). Polish Competition Law –Commentary Case LAw and Text. Warsaw:
Drukarnia Braci Grodzickich Sp.J.
Chwaliński, S. (2015). Competition law in Poland. Retrieved from Polish Information and Foreign
Investment Agency .
III CZP, 52/08 (Supreme court of Poland July 23, 2008).
Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe Porty Lotnicze , 427/10 (Court of Appeals December 17, 2010).