| In Principle

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.

In light of the difficulties associated with the coronavirus epidemic, and joining the global trend under the hashtag #flattenthecurve, competition authorities around the world, including Poland, are introducing, more or less officially, extraordinary operating procedures to avoid spreading the coronavirus. This can have a major impact on proceedings before these authorities, including filing and consideration of applications seeking approval of concentrations.

The coronavirus epidemic is generating new problems for parties to business transactions: restrictions on business operations, supply disruptions, limited availability of staff and materials, changes in the operation of public bodies and post offices. The downtime they cause has effects not only on civil-law grounds. In addition, there is the issue of expiry of administrative permits. Do the existing regulations, and the new Anti-Crisis Shield, offer any solution?

Many investors currently carrying out construction projects or planning to start them in the near future ask us about the legal possibilities to suspend a project or even withdraw from existing contracts. The question arises whether it makes sense to continue or start projects when implementation will require large financial capital and considerable resources. In this article, we identify legal instruments that may be available to an investor who would decide to stop the performance of works or definitively withdraw from a construction contract.

The pandemic may delay the performance of construction works and increase their costs. It may even make it completely impossible for a contractor to fulfil its obligations. But how this affects the contractors’ legal situation depends on the factual circumstances of the given case and the wording of the specific construction contract.

The solutions provided for in the Anti-Crisis Shield are intended to activate extraordinary instruments supporting businesses during the pandemic. Can changes in the running of time limits provided for by law, including proceedings before public administrative bodies and administrative courts, be regarded as such a solution?

Does the COVID-19 epidemic constitute force majeure interrupting the running of time limits on all claims? This is a vital issue for persons for whom time limits are expiring before entry into force of the planned statutory suspension of limitations periods.

On the In Principle portal we write concisely and approachably, but sometimes the situation requires communication in a nutshell. We invite you to visit the page on COVID-19 FAQs.

Justice systems around the world will soon be exposed to the same pressure as is currently crushing healthcare systems in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. What can judges and advocates do to “flatten the curve” and increase the resilience of the justice system as it awaits the post-pandemic wave of disputes?

Even such unusual circumstances as a pandemic do not overthrow the general principle that contracts should be performed (pacta sunt servanda). But this does not mean that the current situation has no impact on the substance or performance of contractual obligations.