Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 1 of 2 pages
Anti-Trust Law1Anti Trust Law in PolandIn this case, National Forest has violated the principles of Anti-trust (Antimonopoly Act) 1987, whichprohibits specific practices and monopolistic agreements. Article 8 of the Act[ CITATION Mat13 \l1033 ]prohibits actions, which “impose, without any reasonable explanation, onerous contract termsthat yield undue benefits to economic unit that imposes them”The action against NF therefore can bebrought against NF by the private enforcement of Competition law wherein the dominant companyhas 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 imposingunnecessary conditions on the furniture production business, thereby attracting the provisions of theAct. In this case, since the market share of NF is 70%,[ CITATION Szy15 \l 1033 ]it can becharacterized as having a dominant share in the market. Hence, imposing onerous terms, or what theparty conceives to be onerous is prohibited under the Competition Law of Poland. The abuse ofdominance occurs in the contractshaving both objective and subjective dimensions. While subjectiveonerous contracts include what is perceived by the party, objective onerous terms include where theparty would not accept the terms under competitive market conditions.[ CITATION Mat13 \l 1033 ].The claimant in this case, did not accept the conditions of the contract and hence was willing tocontract with NF if there were no conditions attached to it. The case ofPrzedsiębiorstwo PaństwowePorty Lotnicze[ CITATION Prz10 \l 1033 ]is an apt one where the Court of Appeals assessed as to whatconstitutes onerous agreement terms and conditions. The court while holding that application toequivalent transactions with third parties those terms and conditions which are not homogenousagreement terms and conditions, thus creating for these parties diversified conditions ofcompetitions”.Although in the above cases, abuse of dominant position refers to cases of competition, the same canbe applied to restrictive trade practices under Unfair Market Practices Act, 2007. The Civil chamberof the Supreme Court dealt with the question of unfair practices in the case of Skarb Panstwa-Nadlesnictwo Dobrzejewice V Torunskie Przedsiebiorstwo Przemyslu Drzewnego SA,[ CITATIONIII08 \l 1033 ]wherein conditions were laid down that theparties enter into a contract thereby agreeingto write off the bad debts. The Claimant stated that the contract be held invalid as it led to abuse ofdominant position by the defendant. While the case was dismissed by the lower court, the matter wastaken up by the Supreme Court. Here it was held that while abuse of dominant position is equivalentto restricted competition, holding any legal activity as ineffective would mean protection of privateinterests 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 theCombating Unfair Competition Act, 2003 as it refers to the enforcement of competition law in Poland.