Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji:
http://hdl.handle.net/11320/8037
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DC | Wartość | Język |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Targański, Bartosz | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-07-03T11:41:02Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-07-03T11:41:02Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, Vol. 24 nr 2, 2019, s. 187-197 | pl |
dc.identifier.issn | 1689-7404 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11320/8037 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The article discusses a recent legal change in relation to inspections conducted by the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (the “OCCP”) in light of the standards of procedural safeguards that should be available to companies during inspections of competition authorities as described by the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECtHR”) in case Delta Pekárny v. the Czech Republic. During inspections the OCCP could obtain access to documents unrelated to the subject of the proceedings, including private documents. This may lead to the infringement of the right to respect for private and family life protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention”). In light of the Delta Pekárny judgment, decisions about the initiation of the inspection of competition authorities should be subject to effective judicial review. The judicial review should take place either prior to inspection or thereafter (ex post facto). The goal of the article is to verify the consistency of procedural safeguards during controls and searches conducted by the OCCP with the standards of protection in the Delta Pekárny judgement. | pl |
dc.language.iso | en | pl |
dc.publisher | Wydział Prawa Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Temida 2 | pl |
dc.subject | right to privacy | pl |
dc.subject | competition law | pl |
dc.subject | controls | pl |
dc.subject | searches | pl |
dc.subject | judicial review | pl |
dc.title | Judicial Review of Decisions Relating to Inspections of the President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection – Between the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case Delta Pekárny v. The Czech Republic and the Judgement of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal of 16 January 2019 in Case P 19/17 | pl |
dc.type | Article | pl |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.15290/bsp.2019.24.02.10 | - |
dc.description.Email | btarga@sgh.waw.pl | pl |
dc.description.Biographicalnote | Bartosz Targański – Ph.D. in Economics; assistant professor at the Warsaw School of Economics (Poland). He is also a legal advisor specializing in matters at the intersection of law and economics, with special focus on the digital economy. He is the author of numerous articles on competition and consumer law. As a legal advisor, he has provided specialist advice in major cartel investigations, as well as in consumer and merger cases. His previous professional experience also includes work as a casehandler at the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. | pl |
dc.description.Affiliation | Warsaw School of Economics (SGH) | pl |
dc.description.references | Barinka R., The Czech Constitutional Court rules that inspection at business premises of a company does not require a prior judicial authorization (Delta Pekarny), 26 August 2010, e-Competitions Bulletin August 2010, Art. N° 33217, available at: https://www.concurrences.com/en/bulletin/news-issues/august-2010/The-Czech-Constitutional-Court (accessed 20.05.2019). | pl |
dc.description.references | Bernatt M., Between Menarini and Delta Pekarny - Strasbourg view on intensity of judicial review in competition law. [in] The procedural aspects of the application of competition law: European frameworks – Central European perspectives, Csongor István Nagy (ed.), Europa Law Publishing, Gröningen, 2016, available at: https://www.academia.edu/26014468/Between_Menarini_and_Delta_Pekarny_Strasbourg_view_on_intensity_of_judicial_review_in_competition_law (accessed 20.05.2019). | pl |
dc.description.references | Bernatt M., Sprawiedliwość proceduralna w postępowaniu przed organem ochrony konkurencji, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2011. | pl |
dc.description.references | Bernatt M., Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz. T. Skoczny (ed.), 2nd edition, Warszawa 2014, Legalis. | pl |
dc.description.references | High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Interlaken Declaration from 9. February 2010, available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2010_Interlaken_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf (accessed 20.05.2019). | pl |
dc.description.references | Kohutek K., Sieradzka M., Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz, LEX 2014. | pl |
dc.description.references | Materna G., Warunki podejmowania kontroli i przeszukań w postępowaniach z zakresu ochrony konkurencji prowadzonych na podstawie ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów w aspekcie orzecznictwa na tle art. 8 ETPCz, internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny, 2015, nr 8(4). | pl |
dc.description.references | Turno B., Wardęga E., Uprzednia i następcza kontrola aktów upoważaniających organ ochrony konkurencji do przeprowadzenia niezapowiedzianej kontroli (przeszukania) przedsiębiorcy. Glosa do wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka z 2 października 2014 r. w sprawie Delta Pekárny przeciwko Republice Czeskiej, internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny, 2015, nr 8(4). | pl |
dc.description.volume | 24 | |
dc.description.number | 2 | |
dc.description.firstpage | 187 | pl |
dc.description.lastpage | 197 | pl |
dc.identifier.citation2 | Białostockie Studia Prawnicze | pl |
dc.identifier.orcid | 0000-0002-5338-3936 | - |
Występuje w kolekcji(ach): | Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 2019, Vol. 24 nr 2 |
Pliki w tej pozycji:
Plik | Opis | Rozmiar | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BSP_24_2_B_Targanski_Judicial_Review_of_Decisions.pdf | 112,59 kB | Adobe PDF | Otwórz |
Pozycja jest chroniona prawem autorskim (Copyright © Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone)