Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 14

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wokół ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów – przegląd zmian polskiej regulacji prawnej w roku 2013

100%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2014
|
vol. 3
|
issue 3
67-74
XX
Niniejszy artykuł stanowi kontynuację przeglądów dotyczących lat 2010, 2011 i 2012, publikowanych w iKAR-ze w latach 2012–2013. Autorka poddaje w nim analizie zmiany wprowadzone w 2013 r. do rozporządzenia w sprawie wyłączenia niektórych rodzajów porozumień wertykalnych spod zakazu porozumień ograniczających konkurencję. Ponadto artykuł sygnalizuje pewną nowość w wyjaśnieniach Prezesa UOKiK, niemających charakteru prawnie wiążącego
EN
This article acts as a continuation of earlier overviews covering the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 published in iKAR in biennium 2012-2013. Analyzed here are the 2013 amendments to the legal provisions of the regulation on the exemption of certain categories of vertical agreements from the prohibition of agreements restricting competition. Presented also are developments in the area of non-binding guidelines of the UOKiK President
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Compensatory Collective Redress: Will It Be Part of Private Enforcement of Competition Law in CEE Countries?

100%
Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 10(15)
223-250
EN
The article aims to compare and evaluate solutions with regard to compensatory collective redress existing in CEE countries. The author will attempt to illuminate obstacles and challenges to using collective redress as an avenue for antitrust enforcement in CEE countries, as well as possible advantages of the scrutinised legal frameworks. Besides focusing on national provisions, the article will draw on provisions of the Damages Directive and the Commission's Recommendation on collective redress mechanisms. It will open up the field for de lege ferenda proposals also.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Daria Kostecka-Jurczyk, Koncentracja w formie wspólnego przedsiębiorstwa a ryzyko konkurencyjne w świetle prawa antymonopolowego [The concentration in the form of a joint venture and the competition risk in the light of antimonopoly law], C.H. Beck, Warsaw 2017, 304 p.

100%
Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 11(18)
325-327
EN
Joint ventures may create risks for competition. Those risks may be carried by the very structure of the relevant market, or the creation of conditions fostering the coordination of the market conduct of a joint venture and its parent entities or the parent entities themselves. At the end of last year, Dr. Daria Kostecka-Jurczyk, an academic active in the area of EU law, economic law and competition law, published the book Koncentracja w formie wspólnego przedsiębiorstwa a ryzyko konkurencyjne w świetle prawa antymonopolowego [The concentration in the form of a joint venture and the competition risk in the light of antimonopoly law] (C.H. Beck). She analyses therein various risks that competition is exposed to when joint ventures are established; the author studied them carefully and summarized them in the individual chapters of the book. However, her analysis goes beyond the interpretation of EU and Polish competition laws, jurisprudence and legal literature; she examines all aspects of joint ventures from, primarily, a legal perspective, but also from an economic point of view. This approach draws the attention of the reader to the author’s versatility and ability to switch from one discipline to another with ease.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

A Note on 2015 Developments in Polish Competition Law: Is It Really a Drive Towards the European Model?

100%
Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2016
|
vol. 9(14)
203-226
EN
Modern Polish competition law has become highly regulated and codified over the twenty five years of its existence and this article will provide readers with information relating to its recent developments of 2015. Separate subsections present a review of provisions on remedies in infringement decisions as well as settlements. A considerable part of this paper is designed to outline the peculiarities that characterize Poland’s new provisions on fines. Further on, the paper introduces readers to newest trends in the area of concentration control between undertakings. In addition, an assessment of recent developments and suggestions for a further development of Polish competition law are reviewed in the EU context. The conscious intention of the author is to analyse whether the EU competition law pattern, often regarded as a model for Member States, has been used to develop Polish competition law. Has the latter been amended to look more, or less like EU competition law? Has Polish competition law shown the capacity to absorb the best elements of EU competition law into itself? How is the outcome aligned with the declared direction of these amendments?
FR
Le droit de la concurrence polonais moderne est devenu très réglementé et codifié au cours des vingt-cinq années de son existence et cet article fournit aux lecteurs des informations relatives à ses développements récents de 2015. Des sous-sections séparées présentent un examen des dispositions concernant les recours dans les décisions d'infraction ainsi que dans la procédure de transaction. Une grande partie partie de cet article vise à présenter les particularités qui caractérisent des nouvelles dispositions de la loi polonaise concernant les sanctions. Ensuite, l’article présente aux lecteurs les tendances les plus récentes dans le domaine du contrôle des concentrations entre entreprises. De plus, une évaluation des développements récents et la proposition des reformes possibles du droit polonais de la concurrence sont examinées dans le contexte de l'Union européenne. L’idée d’auteur est d’analyser si le modèle européen du droit de la concurrence, souvent considéré comme un modèle pour les Etats Membres, a été utilisé pour développer le droit polonais de la concurrence. Est-ce que le droit polonais de la concurrence a été modifié afin de rassembler le droit de l’Union européenne ou non? Est-ce que le droit polonais de la concurrence a démontré sa capacité à intégrer les meilleurs éléments du droit européen de la concurrence? Comment les résultats des modifications de la loi polonaise sur la concurrence correspondent avec les objectifs des changements?
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Nowe elementy regulacji prawnej kar pieniężnych w ustawie o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów.

100%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2015
|
vol. 4
|
issue 2
42-58
PL
Artykuł prezentuje najważniejsze zmiany w regulacji prawnej kar pieniężnych zawartej w ustawie o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów, jakie weszły w życie 18 stycznia 2015 r. Autorka analizuje zmiany dotyczące w szczególności podstawy wymiaru kar pieniężnych za naruszenia materialne, zasad odstąpienia od wymierzenia kary pieniężnej lub jej obniżenia, nowego rodzaju kar pieniężnych nakładanych na osoby zarządzające oraz czynników uwzględnianych przy ustalaniu wysokości kar pieniężnych. Wskazuje przy tym, jakie problemy zdają się być rozwiązane oraz jakie nowe trudności mogą powstać w związku z nowymi przepisami ustawy.
EN
This article presents the most important changes in the legal framework concerning the imposition of fines contained in the Act on Competition and Consumers Protection which came into effect on 18 January 2015. The Author examines the amendments regarding, in particular: the base used to calculate fines for substantive infringements; rules for immunity from fines and fine reductions; a new type of fine which can now be imposed on managers; as well as factors taken into account while calculating the amount of the fine. At the same time, the Author outlines which of the old problems seem to have been resolved now, and what new difficulties might emerge as a result of the new legal provisions.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Półtora roku w niepewności, czyli Komisja daje szansę Deutsche Bahn. Postępowanie COMP/AT.39678, AT.39731, AT.39915 – Deutsche Bahn I/II/III

100%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2015
|
vol. 4
|
issue 1
133-135
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Czy nieuczciwą konkurencję można zwalczać tylko indywidualnie? Postanowienie Sądu Okręgowego w Warszawie z 12 lipca 2013 r., XVI GC 595/11, Link4

100%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2015
|
vol. 4
|
issue 4
142-144
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Piecemeal Harmonisation Through the Damages Directive? Remarks on What Received Too Little Attention in Relation to Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

100%
Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(12)
79-98
EN
On 11 June 2013, the European Commission adopted a package of measures to tackle the lack of an efficient and coherent private enforcement system of EU competition law in its Member States. In particular, a draft Damages Directive was proposed in order to meet the need for a sound European approach to private enforcement of EU competition law in damages actions. The Damages Directive was ultimately adopted on 26 November 2014. This paper explores some aspects of private antitrust enforcement which have not received sufficient attention from the EU decision-makers during the long preparatory and legislative works preceding the Directive. The paper discusses also some of the remedies that have not been harmonised, and shows how these ‘gaps’ in harmonisation may limit the Directive’s expected influence on both the thinking and practice of private antitrust enforcement in Europe. It is argued in conclusion that further harmonisation may be needed in order to actually transform private enforcement of EU competition law before national courts.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dyrektywa odszkodowawcza 2014/104/UE – przegląd niektórych rozwiązań

100%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2015
|
vol. 4
|
issue 4
75-89
PL
Artykuł prezentuje wybrane postanowienia Dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady 2014/104/UE z 26 listopada 2014 r. w sprawie niektórych przepisów regulujących dochodzenie roszczeń odszkodowawczych z tytułu naruszenia prawa konkurencji państw członkowskich i Unii Europejskiej, objęte przepisami prawa krajowego. Autorka podejmuje próbę dokonania zwięzłego opisu przepisów dyrektywy odszkodowawczej dotyczących ujawniania dowodów, skutku rozstrzygnięć krajowych, terminów przedawnienia i odpowiedzialności solidarnej. Jednocześnie wskazuje na pewne wady przyjętych rozwiązań i trudności, jakie może napotkać polski ustawodawca w toku transpozycji dyrektywy do polskiego systemu prawnego.
EN
The article presents selected provisions of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. The paper provides an outline of provisions on the disclosure of evidence, effect of national decisions, limitation periods as well as joint and several liability. Indicated are also some of the drawbacks of the adopted solutions as well as difficulties which the national legislature may face when transposing the Directive into the Polish legal order.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The EU 2018 Draft Directive on UTPs in B2b Food Supply Chains and the Polish 2016 Act on Combating the Unfair Use of Superior Bargaining Power in the Trade in Agricultural and Food Products

100%
Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 11(17)
143-167
EN
The Polish Act on Counteracting the Unfair Use of Superior Bargaining Power in the Trade in Agricultural and Food Products was adopted on 15 December 2016 and entered into force on 12 July 2017. The new legal framework resembles, in some places, the legal rules contained in the 2007 Act on Competition and Consumer Protection, elsewhere resembles the 1993 Act on Combating Unfair Competition. Therefore, the article reviews the new Polish provisions taking into account the previous system including the prohibition of the abuse of a dominant position and the prohibition of unfair competition. This publication is intended to point out the peculiarities that characterize the new provisions. Readers will find here an assessment of recent Polish developments and suggestions for further development of the Polish legal framework in the EU context. In particular, the review critically analyses some solutions of the 2018 EU draft Directive on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain and shows what amendments to the Polish legal framework will be needed, if the Directive is adopted in the current version.
FR
La loi polonaise sur la lutte contre l’utilisation déloyale du pouvoir de négociation supérieure dans le commerce des produits agricoles et alimentaires a été adoptée le 15 décembre 2016 et est entrée en vigueur le 12 juillet 2017. Le nouveau cadre juridique ressemble, à certains endroits, aux règles juridiques contenues dans la loi de 2007 sur la concurrence et la protection des consommateurs, qui ressemble d’ailleurs à la loi de 1993 sur la lutte contre la concurrence déloyale. Par conséquent, l’article examine les nouvelles dispositions polonaises en tenant compte du système précédent, notamment l’interdiction de l’abus de position dominante et l’interdiction de la concurrence déloyale. Cette publication est censée mettre en évidence les particularités qui caractérisent les nouvelles dispositions. Les lecteurs trouveront ici une évaluation des développements récents en Pologne et des suggestions pour le développement du cadre juridique polonais dans le contexte de l’UE. En particulier l’article analyse de manière critique certaines solutions du projet de directive de l’UE de 2018 sur les pratiques commerciales déloyales dans les relations interentreprises au sein de la chaîne d’approvisionnement alimentaire et indique quelles modifications dans le cadre juridique polonais seront nécessaires si la directive soit adoptée dans la version actuelle.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Zalecenie Komisji dotyczące zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń (collective redress). W jaki sposób dokonać jego implementacji w Polsce?

100%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2014
|
vol. 3
|
issue 4
52-67
PL
W artykule zaprezentowano Zalecenie Komisji dotyczące zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń przyjęte 11.06.2013 r. i ogłoszone w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej 26.07.2013 r. Autorka podejmuje próbę wskazania potencjalnych trudności, jakie może napotkać polski ustawodawca w przypadku implementacji Zalecenia do polskiego systemu prawnego. W szczególności poruszane są kwestie dostosowania polskich przepisów prawa do zasad wynikających z Zalecenia w zakresie podstawowych pojęć, czynnej legitymacji procesowej i dopuszczalności powództw, a także finansowania powództw.
EN
This article presents Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on collective redress mechanisms which was published in the EU Official Journal on 26 July 2013. The article indicates potential difficulties in the case of its implementation into the domestic legal system by the Polish legislature. In particular, it deals with issues of the adjustment of Polish legal provisions to the rules of the Recommendation with respect to basic definitions, legal standing to bring actions and their admissibility, as well as funding.
12
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Editorial foreword

63%
Piszcz A., Arena A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 11(17)
5-6
EN
The Editorial Board is pleased to present the 17th volume of the Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies (YARS 2018, 11(17)). Among others, it contains several articles the drafts of which were presented at the First ‘Gaetano Filangieri’ Conference on the Freedom of Commerce ‘Recent developments in EU Competition Law’. The Conference was held at the University of Naples ‘Federico II’ School of Law on 8-9 May 2018 and featured speakers from eight different European universities.
13
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Package on Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of EU Competition Rules: Can One Size Fit All?

63%
Pais S. O., Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2014
|
vol. 7(10)
209-234
EN
On 17 April 2014, the Proposal for a Directive on antitrust damages actions was accepted by the European Parliament and sent to the EU Council of Ministers for final approval. In addition, a Recommendation was adopted in 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States to meet the need for a coherent European approach to antitrust private enforcement. This package comes at a time when private antitrust enforcement is rapidly evolving in a number of Member States. At the same time however, it establishes several legal solutions that do not fit well with existing national instruments. The aim of this article is to address, in particular, Portuguese and Polish experiences on a number of specific issues surrounding antitrust private enforcement, such as collective redress and contingency fees. Some doubts will also be raised concerning the solutions established in the European package, suggesting that national experiences should not be overlooked
FR
Le 17 avril 2014, la proposition de la directive relative aux actions antitrust en dommages et intérêts a été acceptée par le Parlement européen et envoyé au Conseil de l’UE pour l’adoption finale. En outre, une recommandation a été adoptée en 2013 sur des principes communs applicables aux méchanismes de recours collectif en cassation et en réparation dans les États membres pour répondre à la nécessité d’une approche européenne cohérente à l’application privée antitrust. Ce paquet est livré à un moment où l’application privée antitrust évolue rapidement dans un certain nombre d’États membres. Mais en même temps, il établitplusieurs solutions juridiques qui ne correspondent pas bien avec les instruments nationaux existants. Le but de cet article est d’examiner, en particulier, les expériences portugais et polonais sur un certain nombre de questions spécifiques entourant l’application privée antitrust, tels que le recours collectif en cessation et des honoraires. Des doutes seront également soulevés concernant les solutions établies dans le cadre du paquet européen, en suggèrant que les expériences nationales ne doivent pas être négligées.
14
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Editorial foreword

50%
Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 10(15)
7-10
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.