Abstract

This paper assesses whether the purposive interpretation of the term “undertaking” is used by decision-makers in antitrust cases. This article presents a short summary of this research regarding cases related to the abuse of a dominant position. As a rule, priority must be given to the direct meaning of a text. There are, however, important exceptions to the sup- posed rule. A concise examination of the jurisprudence shows that purposive interpretation is used where the provision in question is open to several inter- pretations. This article relates in some form to the problems that arise from the EU-oriented purposive interpretation of the term “undertaking” as defined under Polish antitrust law. The article considers some of them.