III SK 6/11
AI generated
Supreme Court partially allowed cassation appeal, upholding university fee model for repeated classes and documents.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court partially allowed the cassation appeal filed by the University against the Consumer Protection Office's decision. The Court found that the university's contract model failed to specify fees for repeated classes and documents not covered by the study plan, violating consumer protection laws. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's decision regarding these specific fees while dismissing the appeal on other grounds, remanding the case for a new ruling.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 24 ust. 2 ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; art. 160 ust. 3 Prawa o szkolnictwie wyższym: A university contract must explicitly define fees for repeated classes and documents not in the study plan to comply with consumer protection requirements.
Keywords
AI generated
consumer protection law
university fee structure
repeated classes charges
study plan coverage
contractual transparency
cassation appeal
administrative penalty
Cited Legislation
AI generatedart. 24 ust. 2 ustawy z dnia 16 lutego 2007 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
art. 160 ust. 3 Prawa o szkolnictwie wyższym
art. 99 ust. 1 Prawa o szkolnictwie wyższym
§ 20 rozporządzenia Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 2 listopada 2006 r. w sprawie dokumentacji przebiegu studiów
art. 39815 k.p.c.
art. 39814 k.p.c.
art. 39815 k.p.c
art. 39814 k.p.c