Category: Poland

  • SPCG Successful for Tesco Poland in Arbitration Against Supplier

    SPCG Successful for Tesco Poland in Arbitration Against Supplier

    Studnicki Pleszka Cwiakalski Gorski Limited Partnership has successfully represented the Tesco Poland retail chain in an arbitration dispute before the Court of Arbitration at the Confederation of Lewiatan. The dispute involved the admissibility of turnover-based bonuses by the retail chains of use in trade.

    A former supplier sued Tesco Poland for reimbursement of annual and monthly turnover-based bonuses in the amount of almost PLN 8 million. According to SPCG, the supplier claimed that such bonuses “are deprived of any actual equivalent and in fact constitute fees for admission of the supplier’s goods for sale within the meaning of provisions of the Act on Suppression of Unfair Competition (‘the Act): so-called shelf fees. At the same time, their collection obstructs the supplier’s access to the market within the meaning of Article 15 section 1 (4) and Article 3 of the Act.”

    In opposition, according to SPCG, Tesco Poland “claimed that any discounts granted by the supplier, including bonuses, which depend on the value of turnover between the parties in a given period, are commonly known in turnover as price-setting factors, determined by the parties during the price negotiations, which constitute component of the trade margin for each party. They reduce the supplier’s margin and at the same time increase the margin of the retail chain as a buyer. The trade margin, according to the Article 15 section 1 (4) of the Act does not constitute a fee for admission goods for sale. In addition, obtainment of discounts and bonuses depending on a certain level of turnover in a given settlement period by the recipient of the goods is fully compliant with the market customs established in this regard.”

    The Court of Arbitration at the Confederation of Lewiatan agreed with Tesco Poland that a bonus due to achieving a set level of sales, constitutes in essence a discount, constituting a component of a trade margin within the meaning of the Act. As a result, the Court of Arbitration dismissed the supplier’s demand for reimbursement of the turnover-based bonuses that were granted to the retail chain.

    The SPCG team consisted of Partner Jakub Gorski and Senior Associate Pawel Wec.

  • Changes to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive approved by the European Parliament – What Does It Mean for the Media Market?

    On October 2, 2018, the European Parliament approved the amendments to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMS Directive) and the Council’s approval is expected imminently. Twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, it shall enter into force, and the Member States will need to transpose it into their national legislation within 21 months, probably in mid 2020.

    Overall Direction of Amendments 

    The AVMS Directive is the centerpiece of EU legislation regulating the audiovisual media market. The main reason behind the adoption of its predecessor, Directive 89/552/EEC, in 1989 was to enable cross-border satellite broadcasting. It introduced minimum requirements for broadcasters were and established the principle of the country of origin. Subsequent amendments have shown that the EU legislator is keen to regulate all audiovisual services that might compete with traditional broadcasting. For this reason, in 2007, the AVMS Directive was extended to include on-demand services. Once the current amendments enter into force, the AVMS Directive will also cover video-sharing platforms. While there are obviously many more changes, this is the most significant, as is indicative of the future course of amendments. 

    Services Covered by the AVMS Directive

    The introduction of video-sharing platforms aside, the material scope of the AVMS Directive will generally remain unamended. The AVMS Directive still makes use of the definition of “audiovisual media service(s)”, which may take the form of linear or non-linear services. 

    The amendment introduces minor changes to the definition of ‘audiovisual media service’ in order to stress that a catalog of programs embedded in a different service may also qualify as an audiovisual media service. This detailed stipulation comes partly as a result of the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C‑347/14 on October 21, 2015. The Court explained that a catalog posted on a newspaper publisher’s website may also be subject to the AVMS Directive, provided it fulfills the criteria referred to in the definition. 

    Interestingly, the requirement that programs must be comparable in form and content to that of television broadcasting (TV like) has been removed from the definition of “program”. To date, it has been possible to argue that any service including a program comparable to television broadcasting may be treated as audiovisual media services. 

    These two changes will undoubtedly extend the scope of the AVMS Directive into new services, including webpages featuring video catalogs or many professional channels in social media. That said, considering the terms of judgment C‑132/17 of February 21, 2018, in which the CJEU ruled that the AVMS Directive would not cover a channel featuring promotional audiovisual content, not all of them will qualify.

    Cross-border perspective 

    In cross-border terms, the AVMS Directive does not introduce any fundamental changes. It maintains the country of origin principle, which means that media service providers will be subject to the jurisdiction of a single Member State. The determination of jurisdiction will continue be based on the same criteria, in particular on the location of the service provider’s head office and the place where editorial decisions are made. If they are located in different Member States or outside of the EU, further criteria will be taken into account.  Such criteria include the location of a significant part of the service provider’s workforce.

    The AVMS Directive clarifies two essential issues. Firstly, it defines what an “editorial decision” is, describing it as “a decision which is taken on a regular basis for the purpose of exercising editorial responsibility and linked to the day-to-day operation of the audiovisual media service”. Secondly, “significant part of the workforce” refers to “staff involved in program-related services”. These two elements may be decisive in dubious cases concerning jurisdiction. The AVMS Directive provides for a procedure whereby Member States will be able to determine which jurisdiction a media service provider falls under.

    The AVMS Directive still specifies when Member States may derogate from the country of origin principle and temporarily restrict retransmission of a service.  It also outlines a procedure for cooperation between Member States in the event of relocation of a service provider in order to circumvent more detailed or stricter rules. However, the AVMS Directive introduces certain procedural changes to limit this type of measure by Member States to the bare minimum.

    Financial contribution towards production of European works 

    In a significant new departure from the country of origin principle, Member States to which a service is addressed are now allowed to impose the obligation to make financial contributions towards the production of European works. This is a novel solution, which was originally intended to apply only to on-demand service providers, but was eventually extended to cover all audiovisual media service providers. For example, if a Polish-language program containing advertisements addressed to a Polish viewer operates on the basis of a license obtained in another Member State, its provider may be required to pay fees in Poland. The obligation to pay fees in Poland already exists under the Cinematography Act, but applies only to program broadcasters and platform operators established in Poland. It is worth adding that the requirement laid down in the AVMS Directive does not apply to non-EU service providers, nor does it apply to video platform providers, regardless of where their headquarters are.

    Video-sharing platforms 

    The AVMS Directive also regulates for the first time the operation of video-sharing platforms, which are defined as services or a dissociable part of a service whose principal purpose or function is to offer user-generated programs or videos, for which the video-sharing platform provider bears no editorial responsibility. Video sharing platforms will also be obliged to apply appropriate measures to protect minors from harmful content and protect all audiences against incitements to hatred or violence. 

    The application of advertisement–related requirements is one more important change. Each video sharing platform provider is obligated to comply with the requirements set out in the AVMS Directive with regard to its own advertising content, and to take appropriate measures to ensure that users comply with these requirements. Moreover, the AVMS Directive lists ten tools that video sharing platform providers should use to meet these requirements, including clauses inserted in the terms and conditions of service, age verification, parental control and enabling users to declare commercial content in the video clips they post. Member States may adopt more stringent requirements for video sharing platform providers.

    It is questionable whether the requirements set out in the AVMS Directive are indeed a significant burden, especially as, for the most part, video sharing platform providers already apply adequate measures as set out in the AVMS Directive. Undoubtedly, the most important change will be that, from now on, video sharing platform providers will be subject to the media regulator and will probably have to be registered. Moreover, the video sharing platform provider will be subject to the AVMS Directive even if it is located outside the EU, if another entity from the provider’s corporate group is located within the EU. 

    Promoting European works

    The AVMS Directive sets out stricter requirements regarding the promotion of European works in on-demand audiovisual services. Providers of such services will need to guarantee that at least 30% of the catalogs on their platforms consist of European content, which should be additionally featured in an appropriate manner. The preamble to the AVMS Directive explains how such a distinction can be achieved, e.g. by setting up a separate catalog for European works that will be accessible from the homepage, using European works in advertising campaigns or by featuring European works in banners or similar tools. While the requirements imposed on on-demand service providers are still less stringent than for traditional broadcasters, there is a clear trend towards convergence. 

    Changes in advertising messages

    The AVMS Directive gives broadcasters greater flexibility and enables them to decide on the timing of advertising. It stipulates that the share of TV commercials and teleshopping spots between 6am and 6pm and between 6pm and midnight may not exceed 20% of the total broadcasting time in this time slot. Such flexibility will certainly benefit the broadcasters. At the same time, the direction indicated in the AVMS Directive shows that any national legislation going in the opposite direction would be contrary to the general trend prevailing in the EU.

    As regards other advertising content, the AVMS Directive explicitly prohibits the use of product placement in consumer programs.

    ERGA

    The new regulations will improve cooperation between Member States’ audiovisual authorities by strengthening the European Regulatory Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) and defining its role in the AVMS Directive. The ERGA will be given more tasks, namely to advise and assist the Commission in the coherent implementation of the Directive in all Member States. It is worth mentioning that ERGA was set up by a decision of the European Commission back in 2014.

    Conclusions

    The amendments to the AVMS Directive are certainly significant as they relate in particular to the scope of the services covered by the AVMS Directive and they change the obligations of the providers –  with very light approach for video-sharing platforms, semi-strict (but higher) regulatory obligations for VOD providers and still strict (but slightly more relaxed) rules for the traditional broadcasters. It is important also that the timing of amendments is critical as they are adopted shortly ahead of Brexit (expected in March 2019). If ‘no deal’ will be made between the UK and the EU, the new rules for AVMS Directive will not apply to broadcasters and VOD providers operating based on UK laws. 

    By Karol Laskowski, Counsel  Dentons

  • Gide Advises Orpea Polska on Building Acquisition in Warsaw

    Gide Advises Orpea Polska on Building Acquisition in Warsaw

    Gide has advised Orpea Polska on its acquisition of a property in Warsaw from Orange Polska.

    The building, which Gide reports has “a usable area of approximately 5,700 square meters,” is located in Warsaw’s Nowolipki neighborhood, and Orpea plans to transform it into a retirement home for the elderly.

    Gide’s team included Counsel Blazej Czwarnok and Associates Agnieszka Biernacka and Radoslaw Matusiak.

  • CMS and Linklaters Advise on Mid Europa Partners Sale of PKL to Polish Development Fund

    CMS and Linklaters Advise on Mid Europa Partners Sale of PKL to Polish Development Fund

    CMS has advised Mid Europa Partners on the sale of 100% of shares in Altura S. a r. l., the holding company which owns 99.77% of the shares in Polskie Koleje Linowe SA, to the Polish Development Fund. Linklaters advised the buyers on the deal.

    The agreement between Mid Europa Partners and the Polish Development Fund ⎼ the Polish sovereign fund ⎼ was signed on October 7, 2018. Closing remain contingent on the satisfaction of mandatory conditions precedent, including the approval of the Polish Competition Regulator.

    According to Linklaters, Polskie Koleje Linowe is Poland’s oldest and largest operator of ski lifts, cable cars, and ski slope services, including those in the Zakopane ski resort region. PKL was privatized in 2013.

    “Investments in assets acquired from state-owned companies or in regulated sectors – although usually associated with higher business risk – may also bring the expected return on investment,” said CMS Partner Jakub Marcinkowski. “The key factor in such cases is to have a vision of how the business will develop, as well as properly securing transactions at the legal level.”

    The CMS team was led by Warsaw-based Partner Jakub Marcinkowski and included Counsel Rafal Kluziak, Senior Associate Olga Czyzycka, Associate Rafal Burda, and lawyers Michal Sowinski and Karolina Stepaniuk. English law support was provided by London-based Partner Peter Lewis.

    The Linklaters Warsaw team consisted of Partner Marcin Schulz and Tomasz Zorawski, Managing Associate Agnieszka Maj-Zuk and Agnieszka Mencel, Senior Associate Jakub Wozniak, and Associate Tomasz Pleskot.

  • Dentons Advises PGE on Financing Agreement

    Dentons Advises PGE on Financing Agreement

    Dentons has advised PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna on a PLN 4.1 billion financing provided by a consortium of banks, including PKO Bank Polski S.A., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., MUFG Bank N.V., and Santander Bank Polska S.A. The banks were represented by Clifford Chance.

    According to Dentons, “this was the largest revolving credit facility issued in the country in 2018, and the funds will be used to finance PGE Group’s day-to-day business activity, investment expenses and capital expenditures, and to refinance the group’s debt.”

    Agnieszka Lipska, Counsel on Dentons’ Banking and Finance team who led the firm’s team on the matter, commented: “It goes without saying that the good credit rating of the Polish energy companies, especially those focusing on energy distribution and transmission, helps a lot in this process.”

    Lipska was supported by Dentons Associate Lukasz Blaszczak.

    Clifford Chance did not reply to our inquiries on the matter.

    Editor’s note: After this article was published, Clifford Chance confirmed its involvment on the deal. Their team included Partner Andrzej Stosio, Senior Associate Mateusz Chrusciak, and Associate Wojciech Wator.

  • SK&S and WKB Advise on Sale of PayUp Polska to Polskie ePlatnosti

    SK&S and WKB Advise on Sale of PayUp Polska to Polskie ePlatnosti

    Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak has advised Eurocash S.A. on the sale of 100% of the shares in PayUp Polska S.A. to Centrum Rozliczen Elektronicznych Polskie ePlatnosci S.A. WKB Wiercinski, Kwiecinski, Baehr advised the buyers on the acquisition.

    The preliminary share sale agreement was concluded on September 27, 2018.

    PayUp is a Polish firm that manages a network of over 15,000 Point of Sale terminals in stores through which pre-paid services are provided, including recharging telephones, acceptance of payment cards, and payment via the Internet.

    Eurocash S.A., which is listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, owns and operates a number of retail chains including Delikatesy Centrum, Lewiatan, ABC, Groszek, Eurosklep, with locations throughout Poland.

    Centrum Rozliczen Elektronicznych Polskie ePlatnosci focuses on payment processing technology & solutions for business customers in Poland.

    The SK&S team led by Partner Slawomir Uss, supported by Senior Partner Andrzej Szlęzak. The firm’s team also included Partner Krzysztof Kanton, Senior Counsel Witold Kurek and Jaroslaw Lukawski, Senior Associate Leszek Malecki, and Associates Anna Bartosiewicz, Krzysztof Misarko and Mateusz Blocher.

    The WKB team was led by Partner Jakub Jedrzejak and included Partners Marcin Smolarek and Bartosz Turno, Senior Associates Katarzyna Kozak, Wojciech Kulczyk, Robert Makowski, and Klaudia Fratczak-Kospin, Associate Monika Obieglo, and Junior Associate Janusz Szlanta.

  • First Year of Law on Unfair Practices in Food Sector – an Overview

    One year has passed since the Act on Counteracting the Unfair Use of Contractual Advantage in the Trade of Agricultural and Food Products entered into force. The act aimed to protect small farmers and grocery suppliers from the abuse of power by large supermarkets and chain stores. During the past year, the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (OCCP):

    • issued one decision regarding the unfair use of contractual advantage;
    • launched formal proceedings in two other cases; and
    • conducted a number of explanatory investigations.

    Further, inspections were carried out at soft fruit purchasing centres and a report on the dairy sector was released. In July 2018 the government adopted an amendment to the act which will allow the OCCP to intervene in cases involving smaller farmers.

    OCCP’s decisional practice

    The OCCP has issued only one decision based on the act so far. In March 2018 it imposed commitments on Cykoria SA, a producer of food concentrates. In the final decision, Cykoria was ordered to amend its contracts with carrot suppliers by:

    • providing advance information on the place and date of planned delivery;
    • shortening the payment term to 45 days; and
    • removing the obligation on suppliers to pay a fee to a trade organisation.

    As the case was closed with a commitment decision, no fine was imposed on the party.

    Moreover, the OCCP launched formal proceedings against two other companies which, according to the OCCP’s press releases, had applied distant payment dates in their contractual relations with suppliers. The abovementioned cases are the result of exploratory investigations into the soft fruits market, during which inspections at 29 soft fruit purchasing centres were carried out to verify whether:

    • fruit prices were being set in accordance with the law; and
    • purchasing centres had unfairly used contractual advantage in relation to farmers.

    Dairy sector report

    One of the OCCP’s first investigations following the act’s entry into force concerned the relationship between milk processers and their suppliers. The investigation revealed some practices which could be seen as conducive to an abuse of contractual advantage. For example, the OCCP had doubts about whether exclusivity clauses that forced suppliers to provide all of their milk to one specific dairy or provisions that allow purchasers to terminate contracts without a notice period were abusive.

    Proposed changes

    One year after the act’s entry into force, the government adopted an amendment, which has yet to go through Parliament. The proposed changes aim to protect a larger number of farmers. At present, the act is applicable only to agreements between parties where:

    • the total mutual turnover between the purchaser and the supplier in previous year (or during any of the two preceding years) exceeded Z50,000 (approximately €13,000); or
    • the turnover of the party that applied the questionable practices exceeded Z100 million (approximately €25 million) in the previous year.
    • Under the proposed amendment, the abovementioned turnover thresholds will be abolished. Changes have also been proposed to:
    • ensure the anonymity of the complainant in cases regarding the unfair use of contractual advantage; and
    • empower the OCCP to pronounce an immediately enforceable decision (which means that the practices analysed in a decision will have to be stopped immediately).

    Comment

    Although in the past year the OCCP issued only one decision regarding the unfair use of contractual advantage and launched only two other formal proceedings, it should be acknowledged that it has been actively enforcing the new law. Numerous actions that the OCCP has taken since the act’s entry into force show that it has given a lot of consideration to ensuring that the food supply chain functions properly.

    Moreover, the result of the proposed changes will be an increased number of cases in which the OCCP will be empowered to intervene and issue a decision due to the abolishment of the current turnover thresholds.

    By Anna Turi, Counsel, Andras Nagy, Associate, Mark Kovacs, Associate Schoenherr

  • Act BSWW Advises Zeitgeist Asset Management on Office Building Acquisition in Warsaw

    Act BSWW Advises Zeitgeist Asset Management on Office Building Acquisition in Warsaw

    Act BSWW has advised Zeitgeist Asset Management on its acquisition of an office building in Warsaw.

    The building provides office leasable area on seven floors, with approximately 4000 square meters of general leasing area. 

    According to Act BSWW, “Zeitgeist Asset Management has vast experience on the Polish commercial real estate market, [and] last year they purchased real estate on Dluga St. for over 50 million Polish zlotys for the purpose of developing a luxurious apartment building.”

    Peter Noack, the Co-founder and Managing Director of Zeitgeist Asset Management, commented: “We are very pleased that we, in cooperation with the act BSWW lawyers, managed to acquire an office building in an attractive location in the center of Warsaw. In the future we would like to create high-quality, affordable student housing, thus expanding the existing offer, which has long been insufficient in the Polish capital.”

    Act BSWW’s team was led by Managing Partner Marek Wojnar.

    Act BSWW was not authorized to provide information on the seller

  • Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance Advise on Santander Bank Polska’s Debut Eurobonds Issuance

    Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance Advise on Santander Bank Polska’s Debut Eurobonds Issuance

    Allen & Overy has advised Santander Bank Polska S.A. on the issue of its EUR 500 million Eurobonds. The joint lead managers, J.P. Morgan and PKO Bank Polski, were represented by Clifford Chance.

    The Eurobond issue was Santander Bank Polska’s first. Santander acted as Sole Arranger of the Program and Sole Bookrunner on the bond issuance. The Eurobonds will be listed on Euronext Dublin.

    Allen & Overy’s team was led by Partners Piotr Lesinski from Warsaw and Philip Smith from London, supported by Counsel Lukasz Walczyna, and Associates Michael Hossack and Kamil Czerepak.

    The Clifford Chance team consisted of Partners Grzegorz Namiotkiewicz and David Dunnigan, Counsel Grzegorz Abram, Senior Associates Aleksandra Rudzinska and Eric Green, and Associate Benjamin Evans.

  • SK&S and White & Case Advise on Sale of Konsol Group to Cargill

    SK&S and White & Case Advise on Sale of Konsol Group to Cargill

    SK&S has advised American company Cargill on the acquisition of entities operating within the Konsol Group. The owners of Konsol were represented by White & Case.

    Cargill is an American food production company that for 153 years and now serves customers in over 125 countries. According to SK&S, “150,000 Cargill workers achieve the concern’s goal which is that of supplying the world with food in a safe, responsible, and balanced way. The acquisition of Konsol Group will increase Cargill’s investment commitments in Poland – at present the concern has workers in 29 plants throughout the country.”

    The Konsol Group is a family business with production plants located in Nowy Sacz and Slupca, Poland. In recent years it has invested in poultry breeding and the production of meat products. As a result, according to SK&S, “the firm has a state-of-the-art infrastructure along the entire production chain for poultry products, from production of feed down to the end food products, including a wide range of convenience products.” These latter products, according to SK&S, “set the company apart from its competitors and are exported to dozens of countries around the world.”

    The agreement between Cargill and the Konsol owners remains contingent on approval from relevant authorities. The subject of the transaction are all the entities of the Konsol Group together with the production facilities and product portfolio; i.e. the feed production facilities, five breeding complexes, an abattoir, and two production plants.

    The SK&S team included Partner Lukasz Berak, Senior Partner Krzysztof Pawlisz, Senior Counsel Borys Sawicki, Senior Associates Andrzej Motyka, Dominika Konarska, and Tomasz Duchniak, and Associates Michal Dawidowicz and Jan Pierzgalski. Antimonopoly issues were handled by Partner Krzysztof Kanton, Senior Counsel Jaroslaw Lukawski, and Associate Szymon Murek.

    The White & Case team consisted of Managing Partner Marcin Studniarek, Partners Aneta Hajska and Marek Sawicki, and Associate Klaudia Malczewska.

    Editor’s Note: On January 14, 2019, SK&S announced that “towards the end of December 2018, as a result of an earlier concluded conditional agreement (with which Cargill was assisted by SK&S), once the conditions set out in it had been met and the unconditional consents of the relevant antimonopoly authorities had been obtained, a final agreement was signed under which Cargill acquired the KONSPOL Group. The subject of the transaction were all the companies of the KONSPOL Group together with the production facilities and product portfolio, i.e. acquisition of the feed production plant, five breeding facilities, a slaughterhouse, as well as two production plants employing approximately 1700 people.”