Competition law explicitly prohibits price-fixing arrangements. This applies not only to collusion between competitors, but also to cases of resale price maintenance (RPM), in which a supplier (usually a manufacturer or importer) imposes fixed or minimum resale prices on its distributors. 

The recent activity of the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) indicates that the use of RPM in distribution chains is, unfortunately, fairly common in Poland. In the last few months alone, UOKiK has dealt with such cases on several occasions. 

  1. At the beginning of March, the President of UOKiK imposed fines totalling more than PLN 66 million on an importer of coffee machines and four business counterparties for allegedly agreeing on resale prices. 
  1. At the end of March, the President of UOKiK announced that a dawn raid had been carried out and an investigation opened into a suspected vertical agreement on product resale prices in the market of household appliances. 
  1. In May, the President of UOKiK initiated antitrust proceedings against a bathroom fittings manufacturer on suspicion of imposing resale prices on distributors offering products online. 
  1. Also in May, antitrust proceedings were initiated against a floorboard manufacturer allegedly imposing resale prices on its distributors; charges were also brought against the manufacturer’s largest counterparty. 

This demonstrates that undertakings that engage in such prohibited practices cannot feel secure, but is there a way back to operating legally? In Poland, a party to a vertical agreement can apply for immunity or reduction of a fine under the leniency scheme, unlike under EU antitrust law, where it is reserved exclusively for cartel participants. 

An undertaking that informs the President of UOKiK about the details of an anti-competitive agreement in which they participated, is the first to provide sufficient evidence or information that the authority did not yet have, and meets other legal requirements, may receive full immunity from a fine. However, this path is not available for instance for an undertaking who coerced other undertakings into joining or continuing a prohibited practice. 

Furthermore, a fine can be reduced for an undertaking that provides the President of UOKiK with evidence confirming the existence of an agreement, which has significant added value in relation to the evidence already in UOKiK’s possession, and meets other legal requirements. This may be worthwhile, as a fine can be reduced by up to 50% of the amount that would have been due otherwise. 

If an undertaking is involved in a prohibited agreement and would like to take advantage of the leniency scheme, it is advisable to consult an antitrust lawyer before applying in order to maximise the chances of obtaining immunity or reduction of a fine.