Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
III SK 33/09 AI generated

Supreme Court dismissed appeal holding that proving one anti-competitive practice does not prove another distinct violation.

Case Number III SK 33/09
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals filed by the plaintiff and the interested party against the President of the Competition and Consumer Protection Office. The court noted that while the administrative authority found the defendant committed a prohibited practice by offering unfavorable transport conditions, this did not automatically constitute a separate violation under Article 8(2)(5) of the Competition and Consumer Protection Law. The court rejected the argument that new circumstances regarding market competition justified altering the immediate enforceability of the decision based on different legal grounds.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ustawa z dnia 15 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Stwierdzenie przez organ ochrony konkurencji niedozwolonej praktyki ograniczającej konkurencję nie oznacza automatycznie dopuszczenia się innej, odrębnej praktyki ograniczającej konkurencję.

Keywords

AI generated
anti-competitive practices dominant position abuse immediate enforceability cassation appeal dismissal competition law violations administrative decision market competition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 8 ust. 2 pkt 5 ustawy z dnia 15 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
art. 316 § 1 k.p.c.
art. 47931a k.p.c.
art. 39814 k.p.c.
art. 385 k.p.c
art. 381 k.p.c
art. 233 § 1 k.p.c
art. 328 k.p.c
art. 316 § 1 k.p.c
art. 391 § 1 k.p.c

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