polish

case law

id : 20386

id: 20386

Polish Supreme Court order

dated 14 January 2015

Case No. I CZ 97/14

Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:

In an arbitration before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce between a Swiss company, E.O., and a Cypriot company, E.D., an award was issued in favour of the Cypriot company in May 2012. The Cypriot company applied for recognition and enforcement of the award in the Polish court, which was granted in August 2012. The appeal by the Swiss company was denied by the court of appeal in March 2013. The Swiss company then sought to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Poland against the judgment of the court of appeal, but the cassation appeal was dismissed by the court of appeal in August 2014 as legally impermissible.

On interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Poland, the Supreme Court held that because the arbitration award was issued in Poland, no cassation appeal was available against the ruling on recognition and enforcement of the award. In the case of a domestic award, a cassation appeal could be filed in proceedings to set aside the award. By contrast, Polish courts have no jurisdiction to consider a petition to set aside a foreign award, and thus the ruling on recognition or enforcement of a foreign award is regarded as equivalent to a ruling on the main case and is reviewable through a cassation appeal. The Supreme Court denied the interlocutory appeal accordingly.

Excerpts from the text of the court’s ruling:

1. In a situation where the proceeding before an arbitration court was located abroad and the arbitration award was issued abroad or a settlement was concluded before the arbitration court abroad, it may be said that the proceeding for recognition or enforcement allows legal consequences to be obtained equivalent to those that exist if the proceeding before the arbitration court is located in Poland and an award is issued here or a settlement is concluded here. This proceeding is therefore not limited to the functions fulfilled by a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court in Poland. In effect, a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court abroad cannot be reduced to the role of a proceeding of an auxiliary nature, 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 the “counterpart” of the proceeding in the case.

2. When amending Civil Procedure Code Art. 1215 via the Act of 22 July 2010 Amending the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code and the Bankruptcy and Recovery Law (Journal of Laws Dz.U. 2010 No. 155 item 1037), the Parliament decided the issue of the scope of permissibility of a cassation appeal by permitting it only against an order of the court of second instance on recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court abroad. This allows the conclusion a contrario that a cassation appeal is not permitted against an order of the court of second instance on recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded before an arbitration court in Poland.

scroll up