Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
III SZP 3/06 KI-generiert

Supreme Court allows using identical contract terms as consumer interest violations under Polish Competition Law.

Geschäftsnummer III SZP 3/06
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Polen (PL)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court resolved a legal question regarding whether applying contract terms identical to those banned for another business constitutes a violation of collective consumer interests. The Court found that such practices, even if wording differs slightly, must be treated as prohibited to ensure effective sanctions under EU law. Consequently, the Court ruled that using registered prohibited terms against another entity is a violation of Article 23a of the Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Act.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art. 23a ust. 2 ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Art. 7 dyrektywy 93/13/EWG: The use of contract terms identical to those registered as prohibited constitutes a violation of collective consumer interests, requiring strict interpretation to ensure effective EU law enforcement.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
consumer protection law unfair contract terms collective consumer interests EU law effectiveness competition law enforcement prohibited contract clauses administrative sanctions

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Art. 23a ust. 2 ustawy z dnia 15 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
Art. 7 dyrektywy 93/13/EWG
Art. 1 ust. 1 i 2 dyrektywy 98/27/WE
Art. 10 TWE
Art. 2 i 3t TWE
Art. 76 Konstytucji RP
Art. 47945 § 2 k.p.c.
art. 47945 § 2 k.p.c
art. 47945 k.p.c
art. 47938 k.p.c

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
Von Colson i Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Komisja v Wielkiej Brytanii
III CZP 95/03
Final judgment on standard form contract clauses bars new lawsuits by third parties due to res judicata.
II GSK 54/05
I PK 386/03
Supreme Court remands case to assess if postal service's failure to notify employee about stock rights caused damages.
III PK 38/04
Labor law: Collective guarantee package is a source of labor law; unfavorable changes require notice under Art. 42 § 1 k.p.
II GSK 74/05
II GSK 92/05

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext