InPost wins dispute with former postal monopoly
On 23 January 2015 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected Poczta Polska’s complaint against a ruling by the National Appeals Chamber (KIO) in a tender to provide mailing services for the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (KRUS). The team of GWW attorneys engaged in the project was led by Krystian Szostak, the partner responsible for GWWs litigation practice.
– “After hearing the appeal against the National Appeals Chamber’s ruling, the court ruled that InPost was in the right,” says Kryistian. “The company is making further inroads into the market of postal services for public institutions, which will save millions of zlotys for Polish taxpayers.”
GWW represented InPost before the National Appeals Chamber concerning a tender to deliver correspondence for the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund, as well as in an appeal before the Regional Court in Warsaw.
Krystian Szostak led the team of GWW lawyers, comprising: Paweł Rożyński, an expert in public procurement and PPP issues, and Katarzyna Blachowicz, an attorney-at-law (radca prawny).
This adds to GWW’s record of success in disputes with Poczta Polska; the earlier win concerned a tender to provide mailing services for courts and prosecutors. For more information, please see: GWW’s win in postal tender.
Related posts
New regulations on transparency of remuneration in the recruitment process
New regulations on transparency of remuneration in the recruitment processLABOUR LAW NEWSLETTER – collective labour agreements under new rules
LABOUR LAW NEWSLETTER – collective labour agreements under new rules
Political agreement on abolishing the €150 threshold for e-commerce shipments – changes as early as 2026?
news Political agreement on abolishing the €150 threshold for e-commerce shipments – changes as early as 2026?
Political agreement on abolishing the €150 threshold for e-commerce shipments – changes as early as 2026?Flavourings with alcohol. CJEU: it is the intended purpose that counts, not the actual use
Flavourings with alcohol. CJEU: it is the intended purpose that counts, not the actual useConcerned about
missing out
on key legal
developments?