Poland - UOKiK wins: UEFA
Conditions for selling Euro 2012 tickets in Poland include abusive clauses. The court upheld the reasoning by the President of UOKiK and regarded 19 out of 25 contested clauses as contrary to law
The President of the Office brought the action against the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) in August 2011. The President of UOKiK was concerned about 25 clauses regarding the sales of tickets for Euro 2012.
The President of UOKiK questioned inter alia excluding the liability for delays in tickets delivery. According to UOKiK, arbitrary excluding the liability in any conditions is contrary to law, since the delay may result from certain circumstances that UEFA actually bears responsibility for. Therefore, UOKiK decided that restricting the participation in the event to fans who can confirm the purchase, is acting against social norms and grossly violates consumer interests.
Additionally, UOKiK put in question the clause stating that contingencies may result in changing essential contract terms – i.e. the date, time, or location of matches. According to UOKiK, by failing to provide a catalogue of potential contingencies, the organizer is allowed for any interpretation of contract obligations. Acting so, the entity entitled itself to make unilateral changes to contract terms, also to the detriment of a consumer. Under the law, modifications may be introduced only for vital and clearly specified reasons.
Furthermore, UOKiK was concerned about the clause obliging a consumer to change the already purchased stadium seat 
whenever asked, and being provided with no reasons for such behaviour. According to UOKiK, the taken seat constitutes one of most essential contract terms. The contested clause gives the organizer grounds to unilaterally change the contract without stating the cause and without providing the fan with the possibility to claim compensation.
The Office decided that imposing the obligation to resolve disputes between consumers and UEFA before the court in Switzerland constitutes an abusive clause. UOKiK took the stance, the court jurisdiction should depend on the consumer domicile, not the company premises.
On 22nd June, the court determined 19 out of 25 clauses as violating consumer interests (including all cases presented in this release). In its oral reasoning to the judgement, the court stated the clauses were contrary to social norms and grossly violated collective consumer interests. The clauses determined by the court as abusive by way of a final and enforceable court decision, are entered in the register of prohibited clauses maintained by the President of UOKiK. From their entry, applying them in legal operations involving consumers is pronounced prohibited.
Read the press release.