Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony (double jeopardy) [Archived]
Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony (double jeopardy) [Archived]

The following Competition guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony (double jeopardy) [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related/relevant cases

CASE HUB—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 3 April 2019; it is no longer maintained.

See further, timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases.

Case facts

Outline Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie-a national reference from Poland seeking clarification on the principle of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) and how this is applied in parallel competition investigations.

Latest developments On 3 April 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczeń na Zycie S.A., a national reference from Poland seeking clarification on the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) and how it is applied in circumstances where a national competition authority (NCA) has imposed a fine on an undertaking for anti-competitive conduct based on the parallel application of national and EU competition law.

In this ruling, the Court of Justice agreed with the opinion of Advocate General Wahl and found that antitrust fines based on the parallel application of national and EU competition law does not breach the principle of double jeopardy. The Court of Justice held that: (i) the principle of double jeopardy specifically targets the repetition of proceedings