Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Can the Right to Be Heard Be Respected Without Access to Information About the Proceedings? Deficiencies of National Competition Procedure

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Maciej Bernatt, University of Warsaw, Centre for Antitrust and Regulatory Studies asks Can the Right to Be Heard Be Respected Without Access to Information About the Proceedings? Deficiencies of National Competition Procedure.

ABSTRACT: This article analyses Polish competition procedure from the perspective of a) the right to be heard, and b) the right to receive information about the proceedings. It points out problems with access to information about competition proceedings which influence the level of protection of the right to be heard in these proceedings. In order to appraise this issue, the article embarks upon an examination of the rules governing the right to be heard in Polish competition enforcement proceedings. It then focuses on the extent of the competition authority’s obligation to inform undertakings about the actions addressed to them. The article includes discussion of the rules that circumscribe the parties’ right of access to evidence in the proceedings. Finally, proposals for changes in the practice of the competition authority, as well as in the Polish legal framework, are put forth. The new rules governing competition proceedings before the European Commission serve as an example for improvements in Polish competition procedures.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Forthcoming Programs

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Privacy & Information Security Update Tuesday, October 09, 2012 Social Media Series: Latest Developments in Cause Marketing Thursday, October 11, 2012 Negotiating Merger Remedies at the FTC and DOJ Friday, October 12, 2012 The Final Revised Green Guides Friday, October 12, 2012 September 2012 Antitrust Update Monday, October 15, 2012 What is the FTC "Up To" With Maximum Performance Claims? Monday, October 15, 2012 Recent Antitrust Developments in the Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals Markets: Aug. & Sept. 2012 Wednesday, October 17, 2012 Mixing Antitrust and IP: A Social Mixer Wednesday, October 17, 2012 Cartel Enforcement Around the World Chapter 6: Taiwan, Singapore & India Thursday, October 18, 2012 Consumer Protection & Advertising Law: An Emerging Practice with Exciting Career Opportunities Tuesday, October 23, 2012 Unilateral Conduct Committee Town Hall Meeting Wednesday, October 24, 2012 Canadian Pricing Law Wednesday, October 24, 2012 Consumer Protection and Advertising Law: An Emerging Practice with Exciting Career Opportunities Thursday, October 25, 2012 Criminal Antitrust Update Friday, October 26, 2012 "Rockets & Feathers": Are Oil & Gas Price Spikes Actually Procompetitive? Monday, October 29, 2012 Recent Developments in Two-Sided Markets in US and Canada Tuesday, October 30, 2012 FDA Citizen Petitions and Noerr Immunity Monday, November 05, 2012 Discovery By Leaps and Bounds: Practical Issues in International Antitrust Cases Monday, November 12, 2012 Essential Questions about Standard Essential Patents Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Scope of Application of the Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Code in Competition Enforcement Proceedings

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Rafal Stankiewicz, Warsaw University - Faculty of Law and Public Administration observes The Scope of Application of the Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Code in Competition Enforcement Proceedings.

ABSTRACT: The main premise of this article is an attempt to determine the scope of application of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Code (KPA) in antimonopoly proceedings. The legislator has introduced an extensive system of norm-referenced proceeding provisions for antimonopoly law. In matters not regulated by the legislature, however, it refers primarily to the solutions standardised by the provisions of the KPA. In the opinion of the author of the article, the general reference to the KPA contained in Article 82 is associated with the desire to create strong safeguards to protect the rights of businesses involved. It is also to promote stability, consistency and transparency in the application of the model antimonopoly proceedings. It seems that the legislature came to the conclusion that such a premise might be achieved by establishing the Administrative Procedure Code as the basic procedural instrument for proceedings conducted by the UOKiK President. This rather means that the ‘main burden’ of the creation of a complex mechanism for antimonopoly proceedings rests to a greater degree on the KPA.

Competence of Common Courts in Poland in Competition Matters

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Aleksander Stawicki, WKB Wiercinski, Kwiecinski, Baehr, explores Competence of Common Courts in Poland in Competition Matters.

ABSTRACT: The main aim of this article is to present current judicial practice, concerning hearing cases stemming from appeals of Polish Competition Authority decisions. The relevant court tends to review the cases only on merits, omitting to address procedural infringements, clearly stated by the parties in appeals. In author’s opinion this common practice does not have a legal leg to stand on. Author analyses relevant laws and precedents pointing out, that full review of the decision is Court’s duty, which could not be neglected. Furthermore, according to ECHR rulings procedural guaranties should be assured on high level, especially in matters, where quasi-criminal fines are concerned. As a legal practitioner Author perceives possible crippling effect on effectiveness, assuming that the Court would have to review all steps of the proceedings before Competition Authority. So in conclusion Author proposes a compromise solution asserting, that the Court should at least address all procedural infringement counts stated in appeal.