Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, October 8, 2012

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.

October 8, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

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

October 8, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

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.

October 8, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

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.

October 8, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)