For more than five years, prices of Decora flooring panels and accessories 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 flooring panels, underlays for vinyl and laminate panels, skirting boards and flooring profiles produced by Decora. A significant part of the evidence was obtained during searches at the companies’ premises. UOKiK had previously informed that the proceedings covered Decora, Bel-Pol and two managers, and that the allegations concerned price-fixing and market sharing.
As the authority explains, in practice this meant that consumers renovating or furnishing houses and apartments could not buy the products covered by the agreement at prices lower than those set by the participants in the cartel. The case concerned not only the 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 flooring panels and accessories on its contractors, both wholesalers and retailers. The company allegedly provided sellers with price lists setting the 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 accepted by the manufacturer.
At an earlier stage of the case, UOKiK indicated that Decora may have monitored price levels among distributors. Sellers offering products at lower prices could allegedly face consequences such as the withdrawal of discounts or suspension of deliveries.
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 harder for customers to find cheaper offers.
Sellers allegedly helped monitor the market
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 each other’s prices and informed the manufacturer about cases where products were sold below the agreed level.
Bel-Pol was also said to have monitored the activities of its own contractors offering Decora flooring panels and accessories. If any seller applied lower prices, interventions could follow. This mechanism strengthened the agreement because market participants were monitoring not only their own pricing policies, 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 participants in the cartel. For consumers, this meant limited real competition and potentially higher costs of renovating or finishing apartments and houses.
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 flooring panels and accessories to businesses that purchased them from Decora. In practice, wholesale buyers assigned to one supplier could not freely choose from whom they would buy the products.
The authority had previously indicated that such market sharing could limit wholesalers’ ability to choose suppliers and affect the final prices paid by people furnishing homes or professionals installing flooring.
Market sharing is one of the most serious practices restricting competition, as it eliminates natural rivalry between companies that should be competing for the same customers. Combined with price-fixing, it can lead to a situation in which buyers have neither a real choice of supplier nor the possibility of obtaining a lower price.
Nearly PLN 34 million in fines
The total amount of fines imposed by the President of UOKiK was PLN 33,927,343.75. The highest fine 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 was fined PLN 127,968.75.
The fines imposed on individuals relate to their direct participation in the illegal arrangements. According to UOKiK, the managers were involved, among other things, in activities aimed at disciplining sellers who offered products below the level agreed within the cartel.
Bel-Pol benefited from 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 imposed on Bel-Pol and the company’s manager was reduced by 50%. An additional 10% reduction resulted from voluntary submission to the penalty.
Bel-Pol could not, however, avoid sanctions entirely, because its application was submitted after a search had already been carried out, meaning that the authority already had evidence of the cartel. Decora stated that the PLN 28.3 million fine is higher than the provision created by the company for this purpose. 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 important not only for the penalised companies, but also for consumers and businesses that bought the products covered by the agreement between 2019 and 2024. UOKiK reminds that anyone who suffered damage as a result of a breach of competition law may seek compensation before a civil court. The legal basis is the Act on Claims for Damages Caused by Infringements 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 claim 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.
