Only 3% of antitrust proceedings before Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) are completed within the statutory deadline, while the average case lasts between 12 and 19 months. A new report from the Centre for Development Strategies argues that Polish regulators are broadly fulfilling their role, but that enforcement procedures need to become faster, less formalised and more open to dialogue with business.
The study covers four key regulators: UOKiK, the Energy Regulatory Office (URE), the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) and the Office of Rail Transport (UTK). According to the report, 78.1% of entrepreneurs see excessive formalism as a significant obstacle to doing business. The longest antitrust proceeding analysed lasted 69 months, and 43% of UOKiK decisions are appealed to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Regulators need more dialogue with the market
Piotr Głowacki, economic adviser to the Polish president, told Newseria that supervisory authorities perform an important systemic role, but their procedures should be simplified. He argued that reducing excessive paperwork does not mean weakening consumer protection or the state’s strategic security.
The report also points to overlapping competences between regulators. Poland has no systemic mechanism for resolving such conflicts before they turn into formal disputes. As a result, the same market practice can potentially be assessed by two institutions under different standards. The authors contrast this with the UK and Germany, where cooperation mechanisms between regulators are more clearly defined.
Radosław Żydok of the Centre for Development Strategies said regulators should have more room for preventive dialogue with companies and should not focus exclusively on sanctions. In his view, the market impact of major administrative decisions should be assessed both before and after implementation, particularly when those decisions can affect hundreds of millions of zlotys.
Major decisions are rarely assessed after implementation
None of the four regulators analysed has a systematic mechanism for evaluating the effects of its decisions once they have been implemented. Polish law requires impact assessments for legislation and regulations, but not for administrative decisions. This matters because URE-approved tariffs affect millions of households, while UOKiK fines can reach hundreds of millions of zlotys.
OECD data cited in the report show that only 23% of 149 regulators surveyed across 42 countries conduct formal ex-post evaluations. The report’s authors therefore propose mandatory reviews for decisions with an annual market impact above PLN 100 million or affecting more than 500,000 recipients.
Lengthy proceedings weaken consumer protection
Slow procedures can also hurt consumers. If a harmful market practice continues for 12, 19 or even 69 months while a case is pending, the cumulative damage may exceed the final penalty. In 2025, UOKiK issued 900 decisions, including 369 in competition protection and 530 in consumer protection. The total value of fines reached PLN 1.15 billion.
The report notes that the Energy Regulatory Office also faces resource constraints. At the end of 2025 it employed 433 people, while average staff turnover in 2023–2025 was 10%. At the same time, its remit has expanded, including responsibility for regulating the hydrogen market from 2025.
Telecom regulation seen as a positive example
The authors point to the telecommunications sector as an example of successful ex-ante regulation. Orange Polska’s share of the retail fixed internet market fell from about 60% in 2006 to below 23% in 2024, while fibre-to-the-home coverage reached 75.4% of households, above the EU average of 64%.
At the same time, the report argues that mature markets should gradually move from detailed ex-ante regulation towards ex-post supervision. UKE began consultations in 2025 on deregulating Orange Polska in parts of the wholesale market, reflecting this shift.
The report concludes that Poland does not need weaker regulators, but more efficient ones. Its recommendations include preventive dialogue with companies, clearer division of competences, ex-post impact assessments for major decisions and stronger staffing for the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Source: Newseria; Centre for Development Strategies.
