UOKiK should have had more powers. The Senate has the power of veto

The Senate vetoed an amendment to the Competition and Consumer Protection Act that would increase the independence of the president of the Competition and Consumer Protection Authority and improve the enforcement of sanctions. 50 senators voted in favor of the proposal to reject the amendment, 45 voted against, and one abstained.

The purpose of the amendment was to implement Directive 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on improving the effectiveness of the application of EU competition rules in the internal market by national competition authorities.

The President of the UOKiK was elected for a term of office

The amendment provided for the introduction of the term of office of the president of the UOKiK. Under the amendment, he would be appointed by the Prime Minister for a term of five years from among individuals selected through an open and competitive recruitment process. According to the provisions of the amendment, the same person cannot be the Chairman of the Office for more than two terms of office.

The amendment forbade combining the functions of the president with other activities, except for scientific and research. The President will be required to submit to the Prime Minister an annual report on the activities of the Office. The President of the UOKiK could be dismissed from office only in strictly defined cases listed in the Law.

New powers of UOKiK

The amendment also introduced new provisions on the tasks of the President of the OOCK. He could impose a periodic fine on entrepreneurs who do not fulfill their duties, and receive information from individuals.

The amendment clarified the provision on the imposition of fines on business associations; introduced detailed rules for calculating the turnover of an association of entrepreneurs and its individual members in order to impose a fine and ensure the possibility of collecting a fine in the event of the insolvency of such an association.

Also, the methodology for determining the amount of the fine imposed for offenses committed during or in connection with the audit, as well as as a result of non-execution of the decision of the Chairman of the CSO and K (replacement of the maximum limit of the fine, established in the amount, by the maximum amount, established as a percentage of turnover) . The penalty for these violations was to be no more than 3% of the turnover achieved in the financial year preceding the year in which the penalty was imposed.

The new decisions assumed that if an entrepreneur violated the prohibition on concluding prohibited agreements or abused a dominant position, then the violation was also committed by the entrepreneur or entrepreneurs who have a decisive influence on this entrepreneur.

Leniency programs needed to be improved to encourage potential applicants to inform competition authorities of secret, prohibited agreements that restrict competition.

New provisions were to be introduced regarding the validity of the WOC’s claims. After the changes are made, the substantiation of the charges will be issued at the stage of initiating a case. This obligation was to apply to the following proceedings:

• antimonopoly law in cases of anticompetitive practices;

• on actions that infringe on the collective interests of consumers;

• on cases of recognizing the provisions of a standard contract as unfair;

• regarding the imposition of fines.

The amendment also clarifies the principles of interaction between the UOKiK and the police during inspections and searches.