For more than five years, prices of flooring panels and accessories offered by Decora were allegedly artificially inflated as a result of an illegal agreement. Tomasz Chróstny, President of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, UOKiK, imposed fines totalling nearly PLN 34 million on Decora, Bel-Pol and two managers from the companies. The decision concerns price-fixing and market sharing.
According to UOKiK, the illegal agreement lasted from March 2019 to April 2024. It covered vinyl panels, underlays for vinyl and laminate flooring, skirting boards and flooring profiles manufactured by Decora. A significant part of the evidence was obtained during searches at the companies’ premises. UOKiK had previously reported that the proceedings involved Decora, Bel-Pol and two managers, while the allegations concerned price-fixing and market allocation.
As the authority indicates, in practice this meant that consumers renovating or furnishing apartments and houses could not buy the products covered by the agreement at prices lower than those set by the cartel participants. The case concerned not only flooring panels themselves, but also accessories necessary for their installation.
Decora allegedly imposed prices on sellers
According to UOKiK’s findings, Decora imposed resale prices for panels and accessories on its contractors, both wholesale and retail. The company allegedly provided sellers with price lists setting a minimum price level below which the products could not be offered to customers. This also applied to promotional prices, which stores could use only under rules approved by the manufacturer.
At an earlier stage of the case, UOKiK indicated that Decora may have monitored price levels among distributors, while entities selling products more cheaply could face consequences such as the withdrawal of discounts or the suspension of supplies.
According to the authority’s statement, the price control system was actively enforced. If a store failed to comply with the agreed rules, participants in the arrangement could intervene, demand a price change, block deliveries, remove product displays or limit commercial terms. In practice, this restricted price competition between sellers and made it more difficult for customers to find cheaper offers.
Sellers allegedly participated in market monitoring
Decora’s contractors, including Bel-Pol, one of the largest distributors of its products, were also allegedly involved in the illegal agreement. According to UOKiK, sellers monitored one another’s prices and passed information to the producer about cases of sales below the agreed level.
Bel-Pol was also alleged to have monitored the activities of its own contractors offering Decora panels and accessories. If any seller applied lower prices, interventions could follow. This mechanism strengthened the agreement, as market participants monitored not only their own pricing policy, but also the actions of competitors.
As a result, retail prices were allegedly not shaped freely by the market, but maintained at a level agreed by the cartel participants. For consumers, this meant limited real competition and potentially higher costs of renovation or finishing work.
Market sharing between Decora and Bel-Pol
The second element of the case concerned market sharing. According to UOKiK, Decora and Bel-Pol agreed which wholesale customers would be served by each company. Bel-Pol was allegedly not to sell panels and accessories to businesses that purchased them from Decora. In practice, wholesale customers assigned to one supplier could not freely choose from whom they would buy the products.
The authority had previously indicated that such market allocation could limit wholesalers’ ability to choose suppliers and affect the final prices paid by people furnishing homes or by professionals installing flooring.
Market sharing is one of the most serious practices restricting competition, as it eliminates natural rivalry between entities that should compete for the same customers. Combined with price-fixing, it can lead to a situation in which buyers have neither a genuine choice of supplier nor the possibility of benefiting from a lower price.
Nearly PLN 34 million in fines
The total amount of fines imposed by the President of UOKiK reached PLN 33,927,343.75. The highest penalty was imposed on Decora, at PLN 28,344,000. Bel-Pol was fined PLN 5,290,000. Financial sanctions also covered two managers: Tomasz Ginter from Decora, who was fined PLN 165,375, and Marcin Nawrocki from Bel-Pol, who received a penalty of PLN 127,968.75.
The fines imposed on individuals relate to their direct involvement in the illegal arrangements. According to UOKiK, the managers allegedly participated, among other things, in actions aimed at disciplining sellers who offered products below the level agreed under the cartel.
Bel-Pol used the leniency programme. The company cooperated with UOKiK and provided additional information, including details concerning the inclusion of underlays for laminate panels in the agreement. As a result, the fine for Bel-Pol and its manager was reduced by 50%. An additional 10% reduction resulted from voluntary submission to the penalty.
However, Bel-Pol could not avoid sanctions entirely because its application was submitted after the search had already been carried out, at a stage when the authority had evidence of the existence of the cartel. Decora stated that the PLN 28.3 million fine is higher than the provision created by the company for this purpose, and that its management board disagrees with the decision and intends to appeal.
The decision is not final
The decision of the President of UOKiK is not final. The companies and the fined managers have the right to appeal to court. The final outcome may therefore be determined only after judicial review.
The case is significant not only for the penalised businesses, but also for consumers and companies that purchased the products covered by the agreement between 2019 and 2024. UOKiK reminds that anyone who suffered damage as a result of an infringement of competition law may pursue claims before a civil court. The legal basis is the Act on claims for damages caused by infringement of competition law, which has been in force since 2017.
This means that individuals or companies that overpaid for products covered by the cartel may try to seek compensation from the entities that violated the law. In practice, however, it would be necessary to prove the damage, the link between the infringement and the loss suffered, and the amount of the claim.
