Sołtysiński, Stanisław2017-01-052017-01-051987Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 49, 1987, z. 4, s. 21-370035-9629http://hdl.handle.net/10593/17272The article is concerned with the evaluation of civil, administrative and penal law sanctions contained in the Act on Counteracting Monopolistic Practices in the National Economy. Analysing the invalidity sanction applicable in cases of monopolistic practices and agreements the author points out to the inconsistencies in the Act's provisions, some of which suggest that the legislator provided for absolute invalidity while others indicate suspended invalidity. The only conclusion one may draw with certainty is that invalidating monopolistic agreements mentioned in Art. 11 requires a decision by an antimonopoly organ. Equally clear is Art. 12 granting the said organ the competence to invalidate pricing agreements. However, while Art. 12 seems to impose on the antimonopoly organ a duty to declare invalidity of monopoly agreements, Art. 13 grants competence combined with discretionary powers of an administrative organ. The above solution is defective since monopolistic agreements with respect to prices are the most dangerous form of restricting competition. (Discussing the most severe administrative sanctions, i.e. the division of an economic unit or its liquidation, the author holds the view that decisions in the above matters are conditioned upon formalized and unimportant premisses from the point of view of purposes of the Act, such as three former infringements of the Act within the past three years. On the other hand, the said sanctions should be applied towards enterprises occuping a dominant position on the market and only when other legal means do not give desirable effect. Paradoxically, the antimonopoly organ may command the most severe sanctions against small economic units, such as partnerships, cooperatives or individuals running their own enterprises. The author approves of the solution concerning the control of integration processes (mergers) which provides for the necessity of obtaining a prior consent of an antimonopoly organ. In his concluding remarks the author sets forth the postulate to initiate the studies on the ways of antimonopoly policy. To do this, it is necessary for lawyers and economists to reach an agreement as to the interpretation of highly complex provisions of the Act. The author suggests to use the period of „vacatio legis" for initiating the works in the above field in the Council for Counteracting Monopolistic Practices.polinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArtykuł