A judgment of the Supreme Court overruling a decision of the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) does not apply to all participants in an agreement restricting competition. If a cassation appeal by one of them has been rejected or the Supreme Court has refused to accept it for examination, the case is irrevocably closed, regardless of how the proceedings continue and whether the decision of the president of UOKiK is ultimately upheld.
The Supreme Court recently examined the question of courts being bound by final judgments issued in other cases. This issue relates to the binding nature of a judgment from a substantive point of view, i.e. that the same claim cannot be heard again once adjudicated upon. This is an issue of considerable practical relevance because it determines how the outcome of one case can affect how comparable cases are adjudicated. It also defines the boundaries with respect to a court’s freedom to ascertain facts and make legal evaluations by itself.
The Act on Consideration of Complaints by Financial Market Entities and on the Financial Ombudsman provides that a complaint not resolved within the stated period “is regarded as” resolved in accordance with the customer’s request. In a surprising resolution, the Supreme Court recently ruled that this does not mean that a delay in consideration of a complaint mandates that it is resolved in the customer’s favour, but such a delay merely increases the burden faced by the entity during litigation. If, of course, the matter ever reaches the courts. Was this what the legislature intended?
The Polish Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no reason not to confirm that a foreign judgment against a bankrupt company is enforceable, and issue an enforcement clause. Courts of lower instance have ruled out this possibility.
A ‘competent court’ now also includes the court at the place where the adverse effects of a tortious act occur. This approach will help victims seeking to recover damages.
There has been a great divergence in interpretation of the grounds for retention of bid bonds. A recent resolution by the Supreme Court should unify the practice of contracting authorities on this issue. But the justification for the resolution itself admits certain exceptions from the obligation to retain the bid bond, even when the documents submitted by the contractor fail to confirm fulfilment of the requirements of the tender.