III SK 28/09
AI generated
Supreme Court quashes lower court ruling on telecom price hike violating competition law.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court quashed the appellate court's decision finding a telecom operator guilty of restricting competition through a 100% price increase. The lower court concluded that the drastic price hike eliminated alternative service providers and significantly reduced consumer usage. The Supreme Court reversed this, ruling that the evidence did not prove the price increase had the necessary anticompetitive effects to violate the law.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 8 ust. 1 w związku z art. 8 ust. 2 pkt 5 ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Art. 82 Traktatu ustanawiającego Wspólnotę Europejską: A price increase alone does not constitute a violation of competition law unless it objectively eliminates competition or prevents the development of the market.
Keywords
AI generated
competition law violation
price increase abuse
telecommunications market
anticompetitive effects
market entry barrier
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 8 ust. 1 w związku z art. 8 ust. 2 pkt 5 ustawy z dnia 15 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
Art. 82 Traktatu ustanawiającego Wspólnotę Europejską
art. 233 § 1 k.p.c
art. 217 § 1 k.p.c
art. 227 k.p.c
art. 233 k.p.c
art. 328 § 2 k.p.c
art. 321 § 1 k.p.c
art. 391 § 1 k.p.c
art. 6 k.c
Cited Case Law
AI generatedC-7/97 Bronner
II CK 556/04
Supreme Court dismissed appeal; judgment based on unrequested facts violates Art. 321 § 1 CPC.
I CRN 156/93
III CSK 228/08
Supreme Court quashes appeal judgment for insufficient review of material law violation regarding full compensation damages.
III CK 339/03
III CK 571/04
Supreme Court quashes appeal judgment for exceeding claim scope under Civil Procedure Code Art. 321.1.
I CSK 144/07
Supreme Court dismisses tenant's appeal, upholding landlord's claim for electricity overcharge damages based on admitted meter bypass.