Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
III SZP 3/06 AI generated

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

Case Number III SZP 3/06
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

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 headnote

AI generated

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.

Keywords

AI generated
consumer protection law unfair contract terms collective consumer interests EU law effectiveness competition law enforcement prohibited contract clauses administrative sanctions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
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

Cited Case Law

AI generated
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

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text