Right to Be Heard or Protection of Confidential Information? Competing Guarantees of Procedural Fairness in Proceedings Before the Polish Competition Authority

• Authors: Maciej Bernatt
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The concept of procedural fairness plays an important role in the enforcement of competition law, which must not only be effective but also fair. Thus, legal institutions should guarantee a proper level of protection of the values of procedural fairness. This paper is dedicated to the possible conflict between the guarantees of procedural fairness that find their expression in the right to be heard and in the protection of confidential information. Both guarantees, the right to be heard on the one side, and the protection of confidential information on the other, should be properly balanced. Unlike EU law, Polish legislation and jurisprudence proves to be inefficient in this respect. Article 69 of the Competition Act fails to show clearly what the limits of the protection of confidential information are in situations when the right to be heard of other parties of antitrust proceedings is at stake. Business secrets are predominantly protected over the right to be heard also in the jurisprudence of Polish courts. By contrast, the Competition Act does not seem to properly protect confidential information other than business secrets. Such situation poses a risk for the adequate level of protection of procedural fairness in Polish antitrust enforcement. Moreover, neither Polish legislation nor jurisprudence explains to companies what shall prevail in the case of a concrete conflict between the protection of business secrets and the right to be heard. An answer to this questions is needed seeing as proof of a competition law infringement which should be accessible to the parties, can at the same time constitute a business secret.

FR

Le concept de l’équité procédurale joue un rôle important dans le renforcement de la loi de la concurrence, qui, outre d’être efficace, doit aussi aussi être équitable. Pour cela, les institutions légales devraient garantir le niveau de protection de l’équité procedurale nécessaire. L'objet de cet article est d'étudier les conflits possibles entre les garantis de l’équité procédurale qui trouvent leur expression dans le droit d'être entendu et dans la protection des données confidentielles.

Keywords

EN

procedural fairness; right to be heard; protection of business secrets; confidential information; right of defence; antimonopoly (antitrust) procedure

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2010
• Volume: 3(3)
• Pages: 53-70

Dates

published

2010-12-01

Contributors

author

Maciej Bernatt

• Jean Monnet Chair on European Economic Law, Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw

References

• Banasiński C., Piontek E. (eds.), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary], Warszawa 2009.
• Bernatt M., ‘Ochrona tajemnicy przedsiębiorstwa’ [‘Protection of business secret’] [in:] Brodecki Z. (ed.), Europa urzędników [Europe of Officials], Warszawa 2009.
• Bernatt M., ‘The control of Polish courts over the infringements of procedural rules by the competition authority. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 19 August 2009 - Marquard Media Polska (No. III SK 5/09)’ (2010) 3(3) YARS.
• Erlandsson A., ‘The Defendant's Right of Access to Commission's File in Competition Cases’ 1994 (2) Legal Issues of European Integration.
• Gronowski S., Ustawa antymonopolowa. Komentarz [Antimonopoly law. Commentary], Warszawa 1996.
• Joshua J.M., ‘Balancing the Public Interest: Confidentiality, Trade Secret and Disclosure of Evidence in EC Competition Procedures’ (1994) 15(2) European Competition Law Review.
• Kerse C.S., Khan N., EC Antitrust Procedure, 5th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London 2005.
• Kmieciak Z., ‘Idea sprawiedliwości proceduralnej w postępowaniu administracyjnym (Założenia teoretyczne i doświadczenia praktyki)’ ['The concept of procedural fairness in the administrative proceedings (Theoretical grounds and practical experience)'] (1995) 10 Państwo i Prawo.
• Kohutek K., Sieradzka M., Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary], Warszawa 2008.
• Lavoie C., ‘The Investigative Powers of the Commission with respect to Business Secrets under Community Competition Rules’ (1992) 17 European Law Review.
• Lenaerts K., Vanhamme J., ‘Procedural Rights of Private Parties in the Community Administrative Process’ (1997) 34 Common Market Law Review.
• Levitt M., ‘Access to the File: the Commission's Administrative Procedures in Cases under Articles 85 and 86’ (1997) 34 Common Market Law Review.
• Materna G., ‘Ograniczenie prawa wglądu do materiału dowodowego w postępowaniu przed Prezesem UOKiK’ ['Limitation of access to evidence in the proceedings before UOKiK President'] (2008) 4 Przegląd Prawa Handlowego.
• Skoczny T., Jurkowska A., Miąsik D. (eds.), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary], Warszawa 2009.
• Skoczny T., ‘Polish Competition Law in the 1990s – on the Way to Higher Effectiveness and Deeper Conformity with EC Competition Rules’ [in:] ‘Spontaneous Order, Organization and the Law. Roads to a European Civil Society’ (2001) 2:3, 2:4 European Business Organization Law Review.
• Summers R., ‘Evaluating and Improving Legal Process – A Plea for “Process Values” (1974) 60 Cornell Law Review.