Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Individuals and the Enforcement of Competition Law – Recent Development of the Private Enforcement Doctrinein Polish and European Antitrust Law

100%

Gac M.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

2015

vol. 8(11)

53-82

The following article focuses on the issue of private enforcement of competition law as one of the key elements of the current European and national debate on the efficiency of competition law. By analyzing this concept, the article aims to determine the influence of the European private enforcement model on the national competition law enforcement practice. The goal of the analysis is to answer two main questions: Does the current convergence of the national competition law enforcement system towards the European model guarantee the establishment of an effective, public-private system of antitrust enforcement? Under which conditions may the development of private methods of antitrust enforcement lead to an increase in the efficiency of Polish and European competition law? In order to address these questions, the article analyses the development of the private enforcement doctrine in the European Union and Poland. It refers to European and Polish jurisprudence on private enforcement, the competition policy of the European Commission as well as of the Polish competition authority – the UOKiK President. It also covers recent legislative changes introduced in the European and national legal orders. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the current convergence of the national antirust system towards the European model did not lead to the establishment of an effective mechanism of private enforcement in Poland. Nevertheless, the assessment of recent changes at the European level gives grounds to assume that the adoption of the Directive on Damages Actions, and its transposition into the national legal order, might overcome this problem and allow for better protection of individuals against anti-competitive behaviors.

Niezapowiedziana kontrola Prezesa UOKiK – nowy standard pozyskiwania dowodów w formie elektronicznej. Glosa do postanowienia Sądu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów z 7 marca 2017 r., XVII Amz 15/17

63%

Skurzyński P., Gac M.

internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny

2017

vol. 6

issue 8

115-120

7 marca 2017 r. Sąd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (dalej: SOKiK) wydał istotne orzeczenie dotyczące zakresu uprawnień Prezesa Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (dalej: Prezes UOKiK) w trakcie przeszukań prowadzonych w sprawach dotyczących praktyk ograniczających konkurencję. Orzeczenie to odnosi się do praktycznych aspektów przeszukiwania i pozyskiwania przez Prezesa UOKiK dokumentów w formie elektronicznej (np. systemów IT, dysków twardych, korespondencji e-mail). Można pokusić się nawet o stwierdzenie, że analizowane orzeczenie w praktyce wyznacza nowy standard prowadzenia przez Prezesa UOKiK przeszukań, umożliwiający przeszukiwanym przedsiębiorcom uzyskanie większej niż dotychczas kontroli nad zakresem dokumentów przeglądanych przez urzędników dokonujących przeszukania. Dodatkowo, omawiane postanowienie SOKiK dotyka także kwestii tajemnicy adwokackiej/radcowskiej (legal professional privilege; dalej: LPP), dając podstawę do dalszej debaty na temat zakresu LPP na gruncie polskiego prawa konkurencji.

The commentary discusses the order of the Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection regarding the powers of the Polish Competition Authority (the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) to search IT systems and hardware (e-mails and hard disks) during dawn raids. This order prohibits the current practice of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, according to which electronic data is copied without prior selection and taken from the premises of the inspected undertaking for further analysis at the authority's premises. The order clearly states that the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection conducting an unannounced inspection is obliged to select evidence at the premises of the undertaking, and copy only that information which is relevant to the case. The analysed order also confirms the need for the protection of legal professional privilege within antitrust inspections, and creates the grounds for further debate on its possible scope.

Refine search results

1 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

1 internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny

2 Gac M.

1 Skurzyński P.

1 2017

1 2015

Search results

Individuals and the Enforcement of Competition Law – Recent Development of the Private Enforcement Doctrinein Polish and European Antitrust Law

Niezapowiedziana kontrola Prezesa UOKiK – nowy standard pozyskiwania dowodów w formie elektronicznej. Glosa do postanowienia Sądu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów z 7 marca 2017 r., XVII Amz 15/17