Skip to content

Marta Sendrowicz



Sendrowicz Marta
Marta Sendrowicz



Marta leads Warsaw's Competition and EU practice and coordinates the competition practices of Allen & Overy's CEE offices. She advises on a wide range of competition law issues arising out of commercial agreements, as well as on cases concerning abuse of a dominant position and high profile mergers. She represents clients in proceedings before the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection and the European Commission, covering explanatory and antimonopoly proceedings, leniency applications and concentration proceedings.

Other noteworthy experience includes advising:

  • P4, a Polish mobile phone operator, in an investigation by President of the Competition and Consumer Protection Office regarding an alleged cartel concerning mobile television services. The Polish courts of both instances repealed the decision and found that mobile phone operators had not entered into an anti-competition agreement.
  • Tesco Polska on the construction and implementation of a highly-innovative online sales system which relies on the guide price concept. The sale system was successfully defended before the President of the Competition and Consumer Protection Office and before Polish courts of both instances.
  • Amazon on a wide range of legal matters relevant to implement a strategy of the launch of online sales platform in Poland.
  • Naspers on developing assumptions and preparing a process aimed at obtaining a merger clearance, including in the context of notifying the European Commission of the intended sale of 100% of shares in Allegro Group, which included both and, to private equity funds Cinven, Permira and Mid Europa.
  • Asahi Group Holdings on the competition law aspects of its acquisition of the former SABMiller plc’s businesses and operations in the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary from AB InBev.
  • a client in the banking sector in an Arts. 101 and 102 TFEU investigation initiated by the European Commission regarding potential foreclosure of FinTech companies (preventing them from gaining access to bank customers’ account data), in the context of the implementation of the Payment Services Directive 2.
  • AkzoNobel Decorative Paints on matters related to an appeal against the decision of the President of the Competition and Consumer Protection Office concerning an agreement restricting competition between AkzoNobel, Castorama, OBI, Leroy Merlin and Praktiker, including representing AkzoNobel in proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, securing a significant reduction of the fine imposed on AkzoNobel.
  • Deutsche Bank on State aid law aspects of planned legislation concerning banking tax.
  • Tesco on State aid law aspects of planned legislation concerning retail tax. 



Allen & Overy, A. Pędzich sp. k, Rondo ONZ 1, 34 floor


View office →



Dottore commercialista, Poland, 2001

Admitted as an attorney-at-law, Warsaw Bar Association of Attorneys-at-law


PhD, Competition Law, University of Warsaw, 2001

LLM, European Law, Maastricht University, 1995

Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw, 1994

Experience highlights

Pro-bono experience

  • Marta is the head of the Warsaw Pro Bono Team. She supports the Warsaw team’s initiatives and Allen & Overy’s global pro bono programmes. She is also involved in pro bono initiatives for Court Watch Foundation. Outside Allen & Overy, she supports a charity that provides care for homeless people.


Awards & accolades

A lead antitrust professional, Women in Antitrust 2016

Private Practitioners, Global Competition Review, 2016

Read more

Highlighted individual for Competition/Antitrust in Poland

Hall of Fame ranking, Legal 500, 2018

Read more

Leading individual in Competition/Antitrust in Poland

Legal 500 EMEA, 2019; Chambers Europe, 2019

Read more

Published work

  • Parallel Trade and the Limits of Permitted Actions of Major Medicinal Products’ Suppliers in the Decisions of the European Court of Justice, in: Changes in Competition Policies for the Last Twenty Years, ed. Małgorzata Krasnodębska-Tomkiel, Warsaw 2010
  • Competition Law, in the European Union. Institutional and Economic Law, published by Meritum, Warsaw 2008
  • New Competition Law In Poland – Much Done but Still Some Changes Desirable to Attain a Market-focused Legislation, E.C.L.R, 2008/28
  • Competition Law, in: European Union. Institutional and Economic Law, published by Meritum, Warsaw 2007
  • Breach of Competition Law and Consumers Ability to Enforce Claims, Bulletin No. 6, collection of articles of the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection, Warsaw 2007
  • Control of Business Concentrations in the European Union Law – selected issues, in: Modern Challenges of the European Legal Space, ed. A. Łazowski, R. Ostrihansky, Kraków 2007
  • Competition Law, in: European Union. Institutional and Economic Law, Meritum, 2006
  • Antimonopoly Law and Practice in Poland, in: The European Antitrust Review 2002, Law Business Research Ltd., 2002
  • Polish Merger Control Regulations, in: From Notification to Approval. Competition Law Handbook. EC Merger Control 12th Anniversary Edition, Global Counsel, 2002
  • Polish Competition Law in: The Global Merger Notification Handbook by Howard Adler Jr., Cameron, May 2001
  • Vertical and Horizontal Agreements under Polish Competition Law and Practice, used by Russell Pittman in Competition law in Central and Eastern Europe: five years later, Antitrust Bulletin/Spring, 1998
  • Competition Law in Central and Eastern Europe: Five Years Later, cooperation in a study developed by Russell Pittman from the USA Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Bulletin/Spring, 1998
  • Market definition in competition cases in the light of rulings, with St. Gronowski, Court Review (Przegląd Sądowy), 7-8 1997
  • Definition of market in an antitrust case in the light of judicial decisions, with St. Gronowski,Court Review (Przegląd Sądowy), 1997/7-8
  • Subsidiarity as a fundamental rule in the European Community legal system, Subsydiarność. Monografie I Studia. Centre for Europe Warsaw University, 1996
  • The Principle of Subsidiarity in the European Community - selected issues, European Integration Bulletin No. 4 Centre for Europe Warsaw University, 1995
  • Judiciary in the European Community, (Orzecznictwo Sądów Gospodarczych), 1994

News & insights

Publications: 25 FEBRUARY 2020

A misprediction is not a mistake: settlement not set aside despite change in law

A change in the law made shortly after a compromise agreement was entered into did not give rise to a common mistake of law capable of setting aside the agreement.  The High Court held that while the doctrine of mistake operates in the context of compromise agreements, there was no “common assumption” between the parties as to the relevant law in this case and therefore no mistake.  The court observed that “a mistake will more likely arise where a well-established and unquestioned rule of law is dramatically overturned than where a single decision on a new and difficult point is overruled”.  The decision highlights the reluctance of the English courts to disturb already concluded settlements on the basis of a future revision of the law: Jeremy Philip Elston v (1) Lawrence King (2) Sue Roscoe (trustees in bankruptcy of Jeremy Philip Elston) [2020] EWHC 55 (Ch).

Read more

Publications: 25 FEBRUARY 2020

Legal advice privilege subject to “dominant purpose” test – how to deal with multi-party email communications

The dominant purpose of a communication must be to obtain, or give, legal advice for legal advice privilege to apply.  The Court of Appeal considers how, in the light of this, to analyse privilege and internal multi-party email communications between in-house lawyers and non-lawyer employees. Three Rivers No. 5 is criticised but acknowledged to be binding: The Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2.Com Ltd, R. (on the Application of) [2020] EWCA Civ 35.

Read more

Publications: 25 FEBRUARY 2020

Time limits for damages claims based on public law breaches during rail franchise procurement

This case highlights the very different, and often very strict, time limits that apply in different private law and public law claims.  Rejecting the Secretary of State’s attempt to strike out part of the claims against it, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the six-year time limit for damages claims applies to a procurement conducted outside the Public Contracts (and similar) Regulations.  However, the three- month judicial review time limit may apply to other private law claims in this context.  The decision highlights the importance of considering time limits when challenging, or defending, public body decision-making.  Where the public law act engages private law rights, damages and other remedies may still be available where the time limits for judicial review have passed – provided that judicial review is not being sought by the back door: Secretary of State for Transport v Arriva Rail East Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 2259.

Read more
Antitrust in focus

Publications: 27 SEPTEMBER 2019

Antitrust in focus - September 2019

This newsletter is our take on the antitrust developments we think are most interesting to your business. Marta Sendrowicz, partner based in Warsaw, is our editor this month. She has selected:

Read more