coronavirus | In Principle

The restrictions due to the state of epidemic are making life harder for all of us. But in pending administrative proceedings, there is no basis for holding back actions and resolution of matters, particularly as this could lead to a backlog. The lack of penalties for inaction or delay should not be an excuse for administrative authorities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused mayhem in the world of sport. An earthquake hit when top leagues suspended competitions or cut them short. Then the tensions only kept rising as one major tournament after another was cancelled. The climax was reached when the Tokyo Olympic Games had to be postponed. As a result, the industry has incurred multi-billion-dollar losses. And it is uncertain when the situation can be expected to improve.

The rapid boom in cleaning products suggested that this could be a sector where the first coronavirus-related IP disputes might arise. And so it has proved.

Fraud is a lurking underside of the pandemic, requiring vigilance and preventive measures.

As a result of the parliament’s intervention, mutual obligations of parties to lease agreements in shopping centres are deemed to have “expired.” Does that mean that the lease agreements have expired?

Declaration of a state of epidemiological threat and then a state of epidemic, and other legal acts, entails not only introduction of commands and prohibitions in everyday and professional life but also various types of restrictions on business operations. Doctors may be directed to work in hospitals for infectious diseases. Businesses are saddled with new restrictions causing them to generate significant losses. Can damages be sought from the State Treasury due to these restrictions?

No one expects the Polish State Treasury to bear full responsibility for businesses’ losses due to the coronavirus epidemic. However, the regulations should provide some recompense for parties injured by the introduction of sweeping commands, limitations and prohibitions on business operations. This is required first and foremost by concern for the state of the national economy for which businesses are the driving force.

The pandemic requires immediate response and rapid launch of solutions for combating the coronavirus and its socio-economic impacts. Thus the Anti-Crisis Act includes provisions allowing contracts for fighting the pandemic to be awarded without following lengthy formal procedures.

As a result of the pandemic, many planned and existing contracts have been paralysed. The uncertain situation forces the parties to cease performing contracts or at least poses barriers to performance. In this situation, can they change the contract? Will they have to pay contractual penalties and damages? The Anti-Crisis Act comes to their aid.

One method companies have of dealing with the crisis is to cooperate with their rivals. But before entering into such cooperation, it is worth examining whether it constitutes a conspiracy subject to sanctions from the national competition authority, the European Commission or other antitrust bodies.

The president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has declared war on sellers unfairly raising prices of products during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the instruments proposed by the regulator in combating this pathology is establishment by the Ministry of Development of maximum prices and margins on products essential from the perspective of consumers’ interests (a change included in the recent amendment to the Anti-Crisis Act). On this occasion it is worth reviewing the authority vested in the president of UOKiK to regulate product prices under current law.

The amendment to the Anti-Crisis Act includes proposals drafted by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), intended to increase the financial security of households, ensure access to vital goods and services, and combat price speculation and unjustified increases.