Courts pass down judgments on the banking, electricity, leisure product and food markets

The following court rulings concern lawsuits filed by the Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) concerning abusive clauses and decisions it issued on the protection of collective consumer interests. Three decisions were fully upheld while one was partially changed.

Bank BPH

The first judgment came down in a case against Bank BPH. UOKiK filed a claim to recognise four contract clauses as abusive. The disputed provisions covered changes to agreements without the consent of the consumer, charging consumers a fee for collections operations at the company’s own discretion and changes to the payments and provisions by the bank at times it selected without consultation. In August, the Court of Appeal backed UOKiK’s position and ruled the four clauses prohibited.

Energa-Obrót

In December 2015, UOKiK issued a decision finding that energy company Energa-Obrót had infringed collective consumer interests. The company provided in its price lists and information materials electricity prices that excluded value added tax on goods and service. In September of this year the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK) fully supported the Authority’s position. In the reasons for its judgment, the court indicated that the company had not provided consumers with complete information about the price of the service, which violates their fundamental right to information about transactions.

ZdroWita

Another judgment concerns a December 2013 decision finding that ZdroWita, seller of inter alia relaxation equipment, violated collective consumer interests and imposing a fine of more than 22,000 PLN (ca 5000 EUR). The enterprise suggested the equipment it had been selling had healing and rehabilitation properties. In reality, the product is a relaxation device and has no medicinal properties. UOKiK also accused the company of providing erroneous information to consumers about their entitlement to withdraw from the contract concluded away from business premises. The provisions of the agreement suggested that consumers would incur a contract withdrawal fee. The company appealed the decision and questioned the amount of the fine. In October 2016, SOKiK determined there were insufficient grounds for reducing the fine and dismissed the appeal.

Polmlek Grudziadz

The last judgment concerns a December 2014 UOKiK decision fining the diary company Polmlek Grudziadz 1,471,250 PLN (ca 350,000 EUR). The Authority contended that the company used practices infringing consumers’ collective interests. These included using the trade name "butter", which was misleading for consumers because the products did not meet the requirements for processed dairy products. SOKiK agreed, and ruled that the company had indeed violated consumers' right to true and reliable information about the product. However, the court took into account that the decision of the President of the Office was issued after a change of ownership and decided to reduce the fine by 25 percent, to approximately 1 million PLN (250,000 EUR). According to the Court, the reduced punishment would still fulfill its function, and likewise serve as a warning to other entrepreneurs.

The appeal procedure

An enterprise may appeal an UOKiK decision to SOKiK, and a SOKiK ruling, in turn, to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw. A cassation appeal from a Court of Appeal judgment can be filed with the Supreme Court.

Additional information for the media:

Press Office, UOKiK
Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warsaw
Phone.: +48 22 827 28 92, +48 22 55 60 314, +48 22 55 60 430
E-mail: biuroprasowe@uokik.gov.pl

Twitter: @UOKiKgovPL