Umyślność jako znamię strony podmiotowej deliktu dopuszczenia do naruszenia zakazu porozumień ograniczających konkurencję
‘Intentionality’ as a feature of the subjective side of the tort of allowing a violation of the prohibition of agreements restricting competition

Summary/Abstract: In the event of fi nding that an entrepreneur has violated the prohibition specifi ed in Article 6(1)items 1–6 of the Polish Act on Competition and Consumer Protection or in Article 101(1) letter a–eof the TFEU, liability may also be borne by a manager who, in the performance of their functionand within the duration of the established infringement, intentionally allowed such an infringement to occur through their action or omission (see Art. 6a of the Act of Competition and ConsumerProtection). The purpose of assigning this liability is to demonstrate the individual features of theaction in question. From the subjective perspective, it is primarily about demonstrating thatthe relevant manager had the intention of allowing a violation of a specifi c prohibition to takeplace. The Polish Competition Act does not provide a defi nition of ‘intentionality’ and so it can beunderstood in different ways. However, it is important that it is understood correctly. In most casesconsidered under Article 6a of the Polish Competition Act, the key to assigning liability will bedemonstrating, by the President of the Offi ce of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)of the intentionality of the action or omission of a given manager. It is therefore important to attachdue weight to this feature, and to make exhaustive factual fi ndings in this respect.

• Details
• Contents