polish

case law

id : 20250

id: 20250

Polish Supreme Court order

dated 4 July 2008

Case No. I CZ 139/07

Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:

One Polish individual obtained an award against another Polish individual before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, and subsequently obtained a final order recognizing and enforcing the award. The respondent moved to reopen the proceeding for recognition and enforcement of the award on the grounds that a new ruling had been issued by another court that could serve as relevant precedent. The appellate court denied the motion and the Supreme Court denied an interlocutory appeal.

Excerpts from the text of the court’s ruling:

1. An analysis of the current regulations of Part Five of the Civil Procedure Code supports ... arguments in favour of accepting the differentiation so far in admissibility of a cassation appeal from the ruling of the court of second instance on recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued in Poland, or issued abroad.

2. The nature of a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court is not uniform, and must be viewed differently depending on whether the proceeding concerns an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded in Poland, or an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court abroad.

3. A proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court abroad cannot be relegated to the role of an auxiliary proceeding as is the case with a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court in Poland. This conclusion is confirmed by the broader scope of review of an award or settlement by the state court in the case of an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court abroad. For these reasons, a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court abroad should be treated as a “counterpart” to the proceeding in the matter.

4. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Art. 3941 §2 in connection with Art. 13 §2, an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of the court of second instance dismissing a petition to renew the proceeding in a case seeking recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court in Poland is impermissible.

scroll up