case law

id : 20107

id: 20107

Polish Supreme Court order

dated 5 September 1967

Case No. I CZ 20/67

Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:

In 1948, Stefan L. obtained an arbitration award against Bolesław T. for about PLZ 400,000 (prior to redenomination at a rate of 100:1 in 1950). The respondent’s petition to set aside the award was denied.

The claimant then applied to the Warsaw Province Court for an order converting the amount of the award and costs into the currency in force from 1950, holding that the award was enforceable, and issuing an enforcement clause. In 1965, the court converted the amount (to about PLZ 12,000 after redenomination, including interest), but refused to issue a writ of enforcement until the claimant applied for an enforcement clause.

The claimant filed an interlocutory appeal with the Polish Supreme Court, which found that the claimant had filed such a motion in 1963, and remanded the case, instructing the province court to treat the interlocutory appeal as a motion to amend the order from 1965.

On remand, the province court denied the motion for an enforcement clause, holding that the claimant had failed to prove that the obligation to pay the award had passed to the respondent’s widow, Irena T.

On a further interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court found that the claimant had submitted a probate order holding that Irena T. had inherited the entire estate of Bolesław T., thus enabling an enforcement clause to be issued under the award against Irena T. The court held, however, that issuance of an enforcement clause must be preceded by an order finding that the award is enforceable. The court found that there were no grounds for denial of such order because the award did not violate public policy. The court amended the order below accordingly to provide that the award was enforceable, but left it to the province court to conduct the ministerial act of issuing an enforcement clause for the award.

Excerpt from the text of the court’s ruling:

In a proceeding seeking issuance of an order on the enforceability of an arbitration award (Civil Procedure Code Art. 711 §3), and in a proceeding for issuance of an enforcement clause for such award (Civil Procedure Code Art. 781 §4), the court is not authorized to assess whether the claim exists. Thus, for example, the issue of the claim being time-barred may be considered only if there is a legally final judgment upholding the relevant petition opposing execution (Civil Procedure Code Art. 840 §1(2)).

scroll up