III SK 24/09
AI generated
Supreme Court dismissed appeal, ruling excessive water pricing constitutes an abuse of dominance under competition law.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the water utility's cassation appeal against a fine for allegedly imposing excessive prices and unfair contract terms. The utility argued that statutory tariff-setting procedures exempted it from competition law liability, but the court rejected this defense. The court held that the objective criteria for excessive pricing were met and that the specific water supply statute does not override general competition rules.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 8 ust. 1 i 2 pkt 1 oraz 6 ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; The imposition of objectively excessive prices by a dominant enterprise constitutes an abuse of dominance, regardless of statutory tariff-setting procedures.
Keywords
AI generated
excessive pricing
abuse of dominance
competition law
water supply
dominant position
statutory exemption
objective criteria
Cited Legislation
AI generatedart. 8 ust. 1 i 2 pkt 1 ustawy z dnia 15 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
art. 8 ust. 2 pkt 6 ustawy z dnia 15 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
art. 6 ust. 1a ustawy z dnia 7 czerwca 2001 r. o zbiorowym zaopatrzeniu w wodę i zbiorowym odprowadzaniu ścieków
art. 24 ust. 8 i 9 ustawy o zbiorowym zaopatrzeniu w wodę
art. 316 k.p.c
art. 233 § 1 k.p.c
art. 232 k.p.c
art. 487 § 2 k.c
art. 382 k.p.c
art. 3983 § 3 k.p.c
Cited Case Law
AI generatedIII SK 16/07
Supreme Court dismissed copyright collective society's appeal against competition authority's dominance finding and fine.
III SK 13/06
Supreme Court dismissed appeal against competition fine for predatory pricing on specific bus route.
III SK 26/08
Agreement to limit competition deemed invalid even without explicit intent to interfere with competition mechanisms.
III CSK 17/06
Supreme Court quashes appeal verdict for violating evidence rules and denying proof of tort liability.
V CSK 86/05
Supreme Court quashes appeal for breach of contract due to failed public tender offer rejection. High probability of contract signing required for damages.