Warsaw Appellate Court order
dated 6 July 2007
Case No. I ACz 1030/07
Summary by arbitraż.laszczuk.pl:
The claimant, who resided in the area of Warsaw-Praga, obtained an arbitration award against the respondent, which had its registered office in the area of Olsztyn, on a monetary claim arising out of the tenancy of land located in the area of Olsztyn.
The claimant applied to the Regional Court for Warsaw-Praga for issuance of an enforcement clause for the award. The court held that the court proper to issue an enforcement clause for an arbitration award is the court that would have had jurisdiction over the case if there had not been an arbitration clause. Because the respondent had its registered office in Olsztyn, the court held, the Olsztyn Regional Court was the proper court, and it ordered the case to be transferred there.
The petitioner filed an interlocutory appeal against the transfer order with the Warsaw Appellate Court, arguing that the Regional Court for Warsaw-Praga was proper because, as the creditor resided there, that was the place of performance of the obligation in question. The appellate court held that because the claim arose out of the tenancy of real estate, the court that would have had jurisdiction over the case if there had not been an arbitration clause was the court for the area where the land was located, which in this case was the Olsztyn Regional Court. Although the lower court had based its order on the wrong legal rule, the result was correct. The court denied the interlocutory appeal accordingly.
Excerpt from the text of the court’s ruling:
Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Art. 1158 §1, an application for issuance of an enforcement clause for an arbitration award is heard by the court that would have been proper to hear the case if the parties had not made an arbitration clause. The meaning of this provision leads to the conclusion that it should be interpreted in such a manner that in cases that are identical in subject matter to the case in question, any court before which a party could potentially have asserted the claim if the arbitration clause did not exist should be regarded as proper—without any limitations in this respect, and more specifically without the necessity of exclusive application of the general venue provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Art. 27 ff).