polish

key issues

recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award | case-law

print back

Polish Supreme Court resolution of 28 September 2016 Case No. III CZP 40/16

1. Enforcement of an arbitration award issued in the Republic of Poland or a settlement concluded before such arbitral tribunal is ruled on by the court of appeal in closed session in a panel of a single judge.

2. A proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded before an arbitral tribunal in Poland is an auxiliary proceeding, while a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before such a foreign arbitral tribunal is analogous to a proceeding on the merits of the case.

3. Art. 12131 §2 of the Civil Procedure Code justifies application as relevant of Art. 390 §1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. Recognition and enforcement are treated in the law uniformly, with respect to an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded before an arbitral tribunal in Poland, on the one hand, and an arbitration award issued abroad or a settlement concluded before a foreign arbitral tribunal, on the other hand.

5. In proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued in Poland or a settlement concluded before an arbitral tribunal in Poland, review of the order is provided for through an interlocutory appeal to another panel of the court of appeal (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1214 §4). Such review is conducted in a panel of three judges (Civil Procedure Code Art. 367 §3, first sentence, in connection with Art. 397 §2, first sentence, Art. 3942 §2 and Art. 1214 §4).

Data wydania: 28-09-2016 | Case no.: III CZP 40/16

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration award

id: 20431

Polish Supreme Court order dated 14 January 2015 Case No. I CZ 97/14

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.

Data wydania: 14-01-2015 | Case no.: I CZ 97/14

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration award

id: 20386

Kraków Court of Appeal order dated 10 March 2014 Case No. I ACz 315/14

1. The wording of Civil Procedure Code Art. 1215 §2 leaves no doubt that it applies only to an award issued by an arbitration court abroad or a settlement concluded before such court.

2. The mere fact that a party belongs to the employers’ organization where the arbitration court operates is not grounds for finding the arbitration agreement to be invalid.

Data wydania: 10-03-2014 | Case no.: I ACz 315/14

Key issues: arbitration agreement, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20411

Kraków Court of Appeal order dated 24 October 2013 Case no. I ACz 1722/13

1. Under Art. 1197 §3 of the Civil Procedure Code, an arbitration award is a less formalized document than a state court judgment. In particular, it should be agreed that the identification of the parties to the proceeding before the arbitral tribunal does not have to be included in the caption of the award, but at any place in the award. It should be deemed sufficient to include the designation of the parties in the operative wording of the award using the phrase “awards against respondent X in favour of claimant Y the amount Z,” or to identify the parties in the justification for the award, which is an integral part of the award.

2. Art. 1214 §3 of the Civil Procedure Code has to do with a situation in which enforcement of the arbitration award would result in violation of [fundamental principles of the legal order]. This provision thus requires attention to the substantive content of the arbitration award, that is, to assess the adjudicated claim in terms of the permissibility of its realization in light of fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland. This does not refer however to formal irregularities committed by the arbitral tribunal.

Data wydania: 24-10-2013 | Case no.: I ACz 1722/13

Key issues: arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20426

Kraków Court of Appeal order dated 24 September 2013 Case No. I ACz 1427/13

1. The mere filing of a petition to set aside an arbitration award (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1) is not a barrier to issuance of an [enforcement] clause under Civil Procedure Code Art. 1214, but may lead to postponement of consideration of the case seeking enforcement by way of issuance of an [enforcement] clause (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1216 §1). Similarly, issuance of an enforcement clause for an arbitration award is not a barrier to subsequent setting aside of the award through a petition, as under Civil Procedure Code Art. 1210 the court in closed session may stay enforcement of the arbitration award.

2. In a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award, the subject of examination is not the correctness of the claim or the substantive basis for its existence, or formal issues concerning the course of the arbitration proceeding. But this does not mean that the proceeding on the petition to set aside the arbitration award is a predicate in relation to the proceeding for recognition or enforcement of the arbitration award. On the contrary, both of these proceedings are independent of one another and based on different grounds. If the proceedings on the petition to set aside the arbitration award and on the application for recognition or enforcement of the award coincide, the consequences of this coincidence for the latter proceeding are governed by Civil Procedure Code Art. 1216.

3. The fact of issuance of an enforcement clause by the state court for a ruling by an arbitration court does not affect in any way the ability to file a petition to set aside the arbitration award. After all, stay of enforcement of the arbitration award as a result of filing of the petition to set aside the award may occur if and only if the award was also held to be enforceable under Civil Procedure Code Art. 1212 and following. Before that the arbitration award does not have legal force and is not subject to enforcement. … Therefore, considering that both proceedings are regulated in Part Five of the Civil Procedure Code, and the legal situation of the coincidence of the two proceedings, application of Civil Procedure Code Art. 177 §1(1) should be approached cautiously, as pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Art. 13 §2 this provision is applicable to both of these proceedings only by analogy.

Data wydania: 24-09-2013 | Case no.: I ACz 1427/13

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20410

Polish Supreme Court judgment dated 13 April 2012 Case No. I CSK 416/11

1. The rule of the binding force of legally final judicial rulings, as an element of the values protected under the Constitution and in the international order making up a state governed by the rule of law, which the Republic of Poland is, is included among the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland.

2. The state judicial system and arbitration are not identical. The lack of identity does not mean, however, that arbitration courts, and particularly their rulings, are irrelevant for the judicial system. While it is true that under Art. 175 of the Constitution, justice is dispensed by the state courts, it should be clearly stressed that as part of the dispensation of justice, the state courts oversee the activity of arbitration courts, and more precisely the rulings issued by them.

3. A ruling by a state court on recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award results in ascribing to the award the same force that rulings of state courts have, which is clearly confirmed by Civil Procedure Code Art. 1212 §1. This means that such a ruling, thanks to the state court ruling connected with it, must be treated in legal dealings the same as any other ruling of a state court. ... If an arbitration ruling has the same force as a ruling of a state court, this means that Civil Procedure Code Art. 365 §1 [i.e. preclusive effect] applies to it. Civil Procedure Code Art. 1212 does not provide for any exceptions from the equivalence of the effects of the arbitration court ruling to a state court ruling.

4. If the parties and the arbitration court appointed by them wish the ruling of the arbitration court to be equivalent in its effects to a state court ruling, they must take into consideration that the arbitration court has already ruled preclusively in the same matter between the same parties. If the prior ruling by the arbitration court has already been recognized or enforced by the state court, this has fundamental significance for the ability to recognize a further ruling issued between the same parties. A state court which is ruling on recognition or enforcement of a further ruling may not ignore the fact that the state court has already spoken on the same matter. In other words, the court will be bound by the ruling of the state court that recognized or enforced the prior arbitration court ruling.

5. It follows from Civil Procedure Code Art. 365 §1 that a court ruling on recognition of a second arbitration ruling, being bound by the prior ruling also by a state court, should not permit two rulings to be found in legal circulation which decided the same preclusive issue differently in the same matter between the same parties.

6. The lack of a basis to apply the regulations on a proceeding upon a petition to reopen [a legally final judgment] directly to assessment of an arbitration award, and on the other hand the lack in Polish law of a regulation for reopening a proceeding with respect to arbitration awards, cannot result in the unfettered discretion of an arbitration court in determining whether to take into consideration an earlier award in which a certain issue was already preclusively ruled on between the same parties. … If the arbitration court expects its award to be recognized, it should take into consideration the prior resolution of the preclusive issue in the award that was already recognized with legal finality by the state court. When examining the permissibility of a departure from this rule, the court in a proceeding to set aside an arbitration award may not rely on the mere assertion by the arbitration court that new facts or evidence has appeared in the case, but should determine, applying as relevant the criteria for assessment developed in the context of the legal regulations for reopening of a proceeding concluded in a legally final judgment, whether they are truly new facts and evidence, and whether the party could have asserted them in the prior proceeding.

Data wydania: 13-04-2012 | Case no.: I CSK 416/11

Key issues: arbitration procedure, arbitration award, petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20375

Warsaw Regional Court order dated 24 January 2012 Case No. VII Co 931/10

The applicant withdrew with prejudice the application for enforcement of a foreign arbitration award and issuance of an enforcement clause. ... The respondent consented to withdrawal of the application and discontinuance of the proceeding. ... It appears from the evidence that withdrawal of the application is not inconsistent with the law or principles of social coexistence and is not intended to circumvent the law.

Data wydania: 24-01-2012 | Case no.: VII Co 931/10

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20366

Warsaw Regional Court order dated 8 June 2011 Case No. XX GCo 79/10

Because the arbitration award was set aside, issuance of an order on recognition of the award became moot.

Data wydania: 08-06-2011 | Case no.: XX GCo 79/10

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20365

Polish Supreme Court order dated 20 May 2011 Case No. IV CZ 18/11

1. Final refusal to issue an order enforcing an arbitration award definitively eliminates the possibility of treating the award as equivalent to a state court judgment, and thus eliminates the result of the proceeding up to that point before the arbitration court.

2. Without doubt, the debtor has standing to file a petition to set aside an arbitration award. The creditor is deprived of such possibility, however. A party satisfied with the resolution may only commence a proceeding provided for in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1212 §2. In the situation of the creditor, the proceeding for recognition or enforcement of the award is the only procedure available to such entity for review of the propriety and legality of the determination by a domestic arbitration court.

3. The Civil Procedure Code provides for two forms of review of the rulings of the arbitration court. Alongside the proceeding for enforcement of the rbitration award is the petition to set aside the arbitration award. ... These are independent proceedings, based on independent grounds. ... From the point of view of the proceeding before the state court, the case is definitively ended only by the proceeding on the petition to set aside the arbitration award.

4. An order on recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued abroad—unlike an order on recognition or enforcement of a domestic arbitration award—is analogous to rulings issued in the main proceedings on the merits of the case.

5. A cassation appeal on recognition or enforcement of a domestic arbitration award is impermissible.

Data wydania: 20-05-2011 | Case no.: IV CZ 18/11

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration award

id: 20355

Polish Supreme Court order dated 4 July 2008 Case No. I CZ 139/07

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.

Data wydania: 04-07-2008 | Case no.: I CZ 139/07

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration award

id: 20250

Warsaw Appellate Court order dated 6 July 2007 Case No. I ACz 1030/07

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).

Data wydania: 06-07-2007 | Case no.: I ACz 1030/07

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20358

Polish Supreme Court order dated 13 October 2004 (Case No. I CZ 102/04)

1. An order in which the appellate court, upon consideration of an interlocutory appeal, refused enforcement of an arbitration award is not a ruling ending the proceedings in the case within the meaning of Civil Procedure Code Art. 392. The order does not end the proceedings as a whole, because as a result of refusal to issue an order enforcing the award, the case returns to the arbitration court for reconsideration.

2. No cassation appeal lies from an order in which the court of second instance, upon consideration of an interlocutory appeal, refused enforcement of an arbitration award.

Data wydania: 13-10-2004 | Case no.: I CZ 102/04

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20208

Polish Supreme Court ruling dated 22 September 1999 Case No. I CKN 654/99

1. For the parties to an arbitration proceeding, the opportunity to file a petition to set aside the arbitration award constitutes a specific means of review of the award issued in the proceeding, and the ruling by the state court concluding the proceeding on the petition to set aside the arbitration award definitively concludes the proceeding before the state court. Thus only such a ruling may be characterized as “concluding the proceeding in the matter.” ... Therefore such characterization may be not be ascribed to an order on enforcement of an arbitration award.

2. No cassation appeal will lie from an order by the court of second instance denying an interlocutory appeal from an order on enforcement of an arbitration award, because it is not a ruling concluding the proceeding in the matter within the meaning of Civil Procedure Code Art. 392 §1.

Data wydania: 22-09-1999 | Case no.: I CKN 654/99

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20163

Polish Supreme Court order dated 28 October 1993 Case No. II CRN 70/93

1. The state court may rely on notorious facts or facts of which it has judicial notice as grounds for finding that an arbitration award or settlement by its content violates the rule of law or principles of social coexistence in the Republic of Poland. These clearly include that parties who are business entities make numerous dispositions or other shifting of their assets, unfavourable to one of them, but the negative effects of such consensual dispositions are essentially borne by the creditors of one or both of the parties voluntarily disposing of the assets they hold.

2. The state court may not ... sanction and assist in enforcement of a ruling that causes incomplete or improper performance of an obligation in the form of payment of a debt.

Data wydania: 28-10-1993 | Case no.: II CRN 70/93

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20140

Polish Supreme Court order dated 7 March 1979 Case No. III CRN 10/79

1. Which cases that are subject to consideration by the state courts may be submitted to arbitration is determined by the regulations governing arbitration proceedings.

2. Issuance of an enforcement clause must be preceded by a legally final ruling by the state court, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Art. 711, confirming the enforceability of the arbitration award.

3. The only cases falling under the non-adversarial procedure that may be heard by an arbitration court are those rather rare cases whose nature allows for this, that is, those that meet the grounds [for arbitrability] provided in Civil Procedure Code Art. 697 §1.

4. Under current law, adversarial and non-adversarial proceedings are parallel tracks for judicial proceedings, and the non-adversarial procedure in property matters in which the court commences the proceeding upon application is not so different from the rules applicable in an adversarial proceeding that mere submission of a given matter to resolution through the non-adversarial procedure results in exclusion of the possibility of submitting such matter to an arbitration court for resolution.

Data wydania: 07-03-1979 | Case no.: III CRN 10/79

Key issues: arbitrability of dispute, arbitration agreement, jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20122

Polish Supreme Court resolution dated 20 February 1974 Case No. III CZP 2/74

1. A creditor’s application to the state court for confirmation of the enforceability of an arbitration award, as well as an application for issuance of an enforcement clause for the award, do not interrupt the running of the statute of limitations on the claims covered by the arbitration award.

2. The state court’s confirmation of the enforceability of an arbitration award and issuance of an enforcement clause for the award are two distinct actions by the court, made under separate procedures: namely, confirmation of enforceability occurs in a proceeding provided for in Part One, Book Three of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs the procedure before the arbitration court and before the state court in matters concerning arbitration awards, while issuance of an enforcement clause for an arbitration award occurs in an execution proceeding (Part Two, Book One of the Civil Procedure Code). Moreover, an enforcement clause may be issued only for an arbitration award as to which a legally final order of the state court confirming its enforceability has been issued pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Art. 711.

3. Arbitration, based on the agreement of the parties and carried out by arbitrators, persons trusted by the parties, who in performance of their voluntarily assumed obligations are generally constrained by procedural regulations to only a small degree, must of necessity be overseen by the state courts. Such oversight has to do on one hand with the correctness of the appointment of the arbitration court and the parties’ selection of the arbitrators, and on the other hand with the substance of the actual ruling by the arbitration court. By its nature, the review of the substance of the award cannot includes the very correctness or justice of the resolution, but is limited to whether the ruling was issued under conditions assuring the parties protection of their rights, and whether the resolution violates the rule of law or principles of social coexistence. Review of an arbitration award in the broadest sense is performed by a state court only upon request of a party, asserted in the form of a petition to set aside the arbitration award, as provided in Civil Procedure Code Art. 712 ff, limited in time and in the scope of grounds for challenging the award. However, review of the consistency of the award with principles of the rule of law and principles of social coexistence is made by the state court on its own motion, and the institution of confirmation of enforceability of the award serves this purpose.

4. An order confirming the enforceability of an arbitration award, although a necessary condition for permitting enforcement of the award through state compulsion, does not in itself constitute an act seeking to enforce the award. Thus asserting a demand for confirmation of enforceability is not among the acts undertaken “with the immediate purpose of enforcement, declaration or security” of the claim adjudged by the award within the meaning of Civil Code Art. 123 §1(1).

Data wydania: 20-02-1974 | Case no.: III CZP 2/74

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20119

Polish Supreme Court order dated 5 September 1967 Case No. I CZ 20/67

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)).

Data wydania: 05-09-1967 | Case no.: I CZ 20/67

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20107

Polish Supreme Court ruling dated 29 September 1948 Case No. Wa C 162/48

1. [Civil Procedure Code] Art. 503 §1(4) regards it as sufficient grounds for a petition to set aside an arbitration award if in its substance the award violates public policy or fair practices, but Art. 502 authorizes the court to take notice of the inconsistency between the substance of the award and public policy and fair practices only when such appears from the arbitration record submitted to the court.

2. Pursuant to a petition to set aside an arbitration award, a normal adversarial proceeding is held (Civil Procedure Code Art. 505), during the course of which evidence may be admitted in accordance with general rules.

3. By its nature, a proceeding for issuance of an enforcement clause should be short and simple, and this could not be achieved if it were necessary to admit evidence in proof of the factual circumstances necessary to determine whether in its substance the arbitration award violates public policy or fair practices. For this reason as well, the Parliament restricted the state court to just one source of information, namely the arbitration record, i.e. written documents whose consideration and assessment generally do not entail any difficulties which could prolong the proceeding. If there were no such restriction, with respect to defects in an arbitration award as discussed here, there would be no difference between the two types of proceedings in the state court, which would be inconsistent with the one-track nature of the proceeding, which is consistently implemented in Polish procedural law.

Data wydania: 29-09-1948 | Case no.: Wa C 162/48

Key issues: arbitration agreement, petition to set aside arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20084

Polish Supreme Court resolution dated 28 May 1938 Case Nos. C III 2479/36 and C III 1301/36

1. In a proceeding in the common court, governed by the regulations of Part 1, Book 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, if such book does not provide otherwise the provisions of Part 1, Book 2 of the Civil Procedure Code should be applied as relevant.

2. A proceeding commenced upon motion of a party to appoint an arbitrator or a presiding arbitrator is essentially a separate proceeding which is only to prepare the proceeding before the arbitration court. No interlocutory appeal will lie from the appointment of an arbitrator or presiding arbitrator (Civil Procedure Code Art. 485 §2), and thus there may not be a cassation appeal either, as there is no cassation appeal against an order by the court of first instance. However, an interlocutory appeal does lie from the refusal to make an appointment, and a cassation appeal lies from the order of the court of second instance upholding the negative determination of the court of first instance, as from an order ending the proceeding.

3. A proceeding upon a motion by an arbitrator to set his fee is also a separate proceeding, based on the arbitration agreement. Both the arbitrator and the parties litigating before the arbitration court may file interlocutory appeals against the order of the court of first instance and cassation appeals against the order of the court of second instance, as from an order ending the proceeding.

4. A proceeding commenced upon motion of a party seeking a ruling that an arbitration clause has expired is also a separate proceeding before the common court. Here, the state court rules after hearing the dispute between the parties concerning the effectiveness of the agreement. The order resolving this dispute should be considered comparable to a judgment, and thus the parties have a right to file an interlocutory appeal against the order of the court of first instance and a cassation appeal against the order of the court of second instance.

5. Finally, an order on enforceability of an arbitration award or a settlement concluded before the arbitration court also ends a separate proceeding commenced upon motion of a party. ... An interlocutory appeal will thus lie from the order of the court of first instance concerning enforceability, and a cassation appeal will lie from the order of the court of second instance.

6. The court filing fee should be charged on a cassation appeal in the cases referred to above in accordance with general rules.

7. In these instances, the amount in dispute and the amount of the appeal will be the amount in dispute that would be subject to resolution by the arbitration court.

8. In all the foregoing instances, a cassation appeal is obviously permissible only when the amount of the appeal is [at least] PLZ 500 (subject to [Civil Procedure Code] Art. 425 §§ 2 and 3 and Art. XX §1 of the regulations introducing [the Civil Procedure Code]).

Data wydania: 28-05-1938 | Case no.: C III 2479/36 and C III 1301/36

Key issues: state court assistance, arbitrator, arbitration agreement, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20075

Polish Supreme Court ruling dated 12 November 1936 Case No. C I 1178/36

An order of the appellate court issued as a result of an interlocutory appeal by a party who was denied issuance of an enforcement clause for an arbitration award issued in its dispute is an order concluding the proceeding which under [Civil Procedure Code] Art. 424 §2 may be challenged through a cassation appeal.

Data wydania: 12-11-1936 | Case no.: C I 1178/36

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20314

Polish Supreme Court ruling dated 19-26 October 1936 Case No. C II 1267/36

The executable writ on the basis of which the defendants commenced the execution measures against the plaintiff referred to in the operative wording of the judgment is an arbitration award whose legal finality and enforceability were confirmed by two of the three arbitrators who issued the award. ... Although the [enforcement] clause was defective and did not meet the requirements of §54(3) of the Execution Ordinance, the clause may not be deemed to be non-existent because it was signed by two of the arbitrators, and thus the award may not be regarded as one as to which an enforcement clause has not been issued, particularly as the defendants have taken execution measures against the plaintiff on the basis of the award, with such clause affixed. While it is true that the clause requires supplementation, the state courts are not authorized to effect this, as neither Art. 68 of the Regulations Enacting the Judicial Execution Procedure Law nor the other regulations cited in the resolution appealed against vest such authority in them. Therefore, as the plaintiff has demonstrated that an event resulting in the enforceability of the award in question did not occur, her action to quash the executions referred to in the operative wording of the judgment is justified under Civil Procedure Code Art. 566 §1.

Data wydania: 26-10-1936 | Case no.: C II 1267/36

Key issues: recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20066

Polish Supreme Court ruling dated 16 February 1934 Case No. C III 143/33

1. The state court could only either find the arbitration award enforceable in its entirety or refuse to find the award enforceable also in its entirety,
as it is not the place of the state court in considering a case seeking recognition of an arbitration award as enforceable to review which of the reasons behind the award are justified or unjustified, or which item in an accounting was proved or acknowledged by a party, or to enter at all into consideration of the merits of the dispute.

2. The arbitration court may apply § 319 of the [former German] Civil Procedure Code, i.e. correct obvious errors of calculation, typographical errors or the like. It may not, however, amend its material content after service
of the award on the parties, unless both parties consent to such amendment.

3. Resignation of appointment is a declaration by arbitrators that they refuse to perform their duties, that they renounce the agreement with the parties obliging them to resolve the dispute.

4. In light of the declaration by the arbitrators in the presence of the parties that they resign their appointments, and thus renounce the agreement to perform the duty of arbitrators, pursuant to § 1033 of the [former German] Civil Procedure Code the arbitration agreement ceased to be in force, and expired.

5. In light of expiration of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrators who resigned their appointments had no legal basis to take up their rights and obligations again upon the unilateral request of the plaintiff without the consent of the defendant, as they did.

Data wydania: 16-02-1934 | Case no.: C III 143/33

Key issues: arbitrator, arbitration agreement, arbitration procedure, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20040

Polish Supreme Court ruling dated 18 May 1927 Case No. C 90/26

1. An arbitration court is not a state institution, but operates on the basis of an agreement by the parties ([former Russian] Civil Procedure Code Art. 1367), and thus the regulations on the official language, in force in state offices, do not apply there.

2. For an award written by the arbitration court in a foreign language, in order to obtain a writ of enforcement, which must be issued only in Polish, it is necessary to submit a duly certified translation, which will serve as the basis for the judicial actions connected with issuance of a writ of enforcement and enforcement of the award.

Data wydania: 18-05-1927 | Case no.: C 90/26

Key issues: arbitration procedure, arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20007

Polish Supreme Court ruling dated 30 December 1926 Case No. I C 2009/24

1. A finding by the courts of two instances that an arbitration award is unenforceable is essentially a consequence of the judicially confirmed invalidity of the award, depriving it of force and effect.

2. The objective invalidity [of the arbitration award] could occur only if the scope of authority of the arbitration court was not specified at all or was extended generally, without closer description, to any and all disputes between the parties.

Data wydania: 30-12-1926 | Case no.: I C 2009/24

Key issues: arbitration award, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20005

scroll up