Supreme Court order
dated 12 July 2005
Case No. I CZ 38/05
Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:
An unsuccessful bidder for a public contract filed a challenge against the contracting authority under the Public Procurement Law (as in force at that time). The challenge was not addressed in time, so the bidder filed an appeal with the president of the Public Procurement Office, but the appeal was not considered because the bidder failed to pay the filing fee on time. After an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the bidder then successfully applied to the district court to appoint arbitrators to consider the challenge. On appeal by the president of the Public Procurement Office, the regional court reversed and dismissed the proceeding as moot because of the failure to consider the procurement appeal (due to the bidder’s failure to pay the filing fee). The bidder filed a cassation appeal, which the regional court dismissed as impermissible, and on interlocutory appeal the Supreme Court affirmed, denying the cassation appeal as impermissible in the incidental matter of appointing arbitrators.
Excerpt from the text of the court’s ruling:
The subject of the motion is ... to appoint arbitrators. ... Regardless of which specific arbitration court the appointment of the arbitrators is to serve, the proceeding is by its nature incidental. The ruling issued in the case thus may not be regarded as ending the proceeding in the case, which under Civil Procedure Code Art. 392 is a condition for permissibility of a cassation appeal.