Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
III SZP 3/06 Généré par l'IA

Supreme Court allows using identical contract terms as consumer interest violations under Polish Competition Law.

Numéro de cause III SZP 3/06
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Pologne (PL)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Supreme Court resolved a legal question regarding whether applying contract terms identical to those banned for another business constitutes a violation of collective consumer interests. The Court found that such practices, even if wording differs slightly, must be treated as prohibited to ensure effective sanctions under EU law. Consequently, the Court ruled that using registered prohibited terms against another entity is a violation of Article 23a of the Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Act.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 23a ust. 2 ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Art. 7 dyrektywy 93/13/EWG: The use of contract terms identical to those registered as prohibited constitutes a violation of collective consumer interests, requiring strict interpretation to ensure effective EU law enforcement.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
consumer protection law unfair contract terms collective consumer interests EU law effectiveness competition law enforcement prohibited contract clauses administrative sanctions

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 23a ust. 2 ustawy z dnia 15 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
Art. 7 dyrektywy 93/13/EWG
Art. 1 ust. 1 i 2 dyrektywy 98/27/WE
Art. 10 TWE
Art. 2 i 3t TWE
Art. 76 Konstytucji RP
Art. 47945 § 2 k.p.c.
art. 47945 § 2 k.p.c
art. 47945 k.p.c
art. 47938 k.p.c

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
Von Colson i Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Komisja v Wielkiej Brytanii
III CZP 95/03
Final judgment on standard form contract clauses bars new lawsuits by third parties due to res judicata.
II GSK 54/05
I PK 386/03
Supreme Court remands case to assess if postal service's failure to notify employee about stock rights caused damages.
III PK 38/04
Labor law: Collective guarantee package is a source of labor law; unfavorable changes require notice under Art. 42 § 1 k.p.
II GSK 74/05
II GSK 92/05

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet