# C_2018104EN.01001201.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 30 October 2017 — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

(Case C-617/17)

(2018/C 104/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

Applicant:

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Defendant:

Interveners: Edward Detka, Mirosław Krzyszczak, Zakład Projektowania i Programowania Systemów Sterowania Atempol sp. z o.o. w Piekarach Ślaskich, Tomasz Woźniak, Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych w Bielinach, Lech Marchlewski, Ommer Polska sp. z o.o. w Krapkowicach, Zakład Przetwórstwa Drobiu Marica spółka jawna J.M.E.K. Wróbel sp. jawna w Bielsku Białej, Glimat Marcinek i S-ka sp. jawna w Gliwicach, HTS Polska sp. z o.o., Jastrzębskie Zakładów Remontowych Dźwigi sp. z o.o. w Jastrzębiu Zdroju, Petrofer — Polska sp. z o.o. w Nowinach, Paco Cases Andrzej Paczkowski, Piotr Paczkowski sp. jawna w Puszczykowie, Bożena Kubalańca, Zbigniew Arczykowski, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Handlu i Usług Unipasz sp. z o.o. w Radzikowicach, Pietrzak B.B. Beata Pietrzak Bogdan Pietrzak sp. jawna w Katowicach, Ewelina Baranowska, Przemysław Nikiel, Marcin Nikiel, Janusz Walocha, Marek Grzegolec

Interveners

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the application of the ne bis in idem principle presupposes not only that the offender and the facts are the same but also that the legal interest protected is the same? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the application of the ne bis in idem principle presupposes not only that the offender and the facts are the same but also that the legal interest protected is the same?

ne bis in idem

| 2. | Is Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, (1) in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of EU competition law and of national competition law which are applied in parallel by the competition authority of a Member State protect the same legal interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, (1) in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of EU competition law and of national competition law which are applied in parallel by the competition authority of a Member State protect the same legal interest?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

1

---