The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06)
By the judgment of 10 May 2007 (III SK 24/06), the Polish Supreme Court ended an over decade-long debate concerning the anticompetitive practices of the Polish incumbent telecoms operator Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. on the national market for audio-text services. In this judgment, the Supreme Court...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Warsaw
2008-11-01
|
| Series: | Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies |
| Online Access: | https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2008_1_1/R-Molski.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818554423829331968 |
|---|---|
| author | Rajmund Molski |
| author_facet | Rajmund Molski |
| author_sort | Rajmund Molski |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | By the judgment of 10 May 2007 (III SK 24/06), the Polish Supreme Court ended an over decade-long debate concerning the anticompetitive practices of the Polish incumbent telecoms operator Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. on the national market for audio-text services. In this judgment, the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the Act of 24 February 1990 on Counteracting Monopolistic Practices. However, in its assessment of the general principles of the case, the Court also made reference to the Act of 15 December 2000 on Competition and Consumer Protection (Competition Act 2000), which replaced the Antimonopoly Act. The Supreme Court ruled that a firm’s entry, or lack thereof, into the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register does not prejudice its status as “an undertaking” within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Competition Act 2000 – decisive in this context was said to be the conduct of an economic activity, rather than the fact of registration. Both the principle and the line of reasoning contained in the judgment remain valid, partly at least, under the current Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection (Competition Act 2007). |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T09:39:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-274100b642c2430f9952f0699b935b9f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1689-9024 2545-0115 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T09:39:18Z |
| publishDate | 2008-11-01 |
| publisher | University of Warsaw |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies |
| spelling | doaj.art-274100b642c2430f9952f0699b935b9f2022-12-22T00:28:36ZengUniversity of WarsawYearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies1689-90242545-01152008-11-0111230235The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06)Rajmund MolskiBy the judgment of 10 May 2007 (III SK 24/06), the Polish Supreme Court ended an over decade-long debate concerning the anticompetitive practices of the Polish incumbent telecoms operator Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. on the national market for audio-text services. In this judgment, the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the Act of 24 February 1990 on Counteracting Monopolistic Practices. However, in its assessment of the general principles of the case, the Court also made reference to the Act of 15 December 2000 on Competition and Consumer Protection (Competition Act 2000), which replaced the Antimonopoly Act. The Supreme Court ruled that a firm’s entry, or lack thereof, into the Register of Entrepreneurs of the National Court Register does not prejudice its status as “an undertaking” within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Competition Act 2000 – decisive in this context was said to be the conduct of an economic activity, rather than the fact of registration. Both the principle and the line of reasoning contained in the judgment remain valid, partly at least, under the current Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection (Competition Act 2007).https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2008_1_1/R-Molski.pdf |
| spellingShingle | Rajmund Molski The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06) Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies |
| title | The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06) |
| title_full | The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06) |
| title_fullStr | The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06) |
| title_full_unstemmed | The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06) |
| title_short | The legal status of foreign undertakings – could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under Polish antitrust law? Case comments to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2007 – Netherlands Antilles (Ref. No. III SK 24/06) |
| title_sort | legal status of foreign undertakings could undertakings with a registered seat abroad be regarded as undertakings entitled to file a request for the institution of antimonopoly proceedings under polish antitrust law case comments to the judgment of the supreme court of 10 may 2007 netherlands antilles ref no iii sk 24 06 |
| url | https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2008_1_1/R-Molski.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rajmundmolski thelegalstatusofforeignundertakingscouldundertakingswitharegisteredseatabroadberegardedasundertakingsentitledtofilearequestfortheinstitutionofantimonopolyproceedingsunderpolishantitrustlawcasecommentstothejudgmentofthesupremecourtof10may2007netherlandsant AT rajmundmolski legalstatusofforeignundertakingscouldundertakingswitharegisteredseatabroadberegardedasundertakingsentitledtofilearequestfortheinstitutionofantimonopolyproceedingsunderpolishantitrustlawcasecommentstothejudgmentofthesupremecourtof10may2007netherlandsantill |