case law

id : 20048

id: 20048

Polish Supreme Court ruling

dated 8 February 1935

Case No. C III 664/34

Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:

The director general of the Polish Coal Convention, a cartel of coal producers, commenced arbitration against the Henckel von Donnersmarck-Beuthen Estates Ltd in Tarnowskie Góry pursuant to an arbitration clause in the convention. The estate applied to the regional court to remove two of the arbitrators. The regional court denied the motion. The Katowice Appellate Court affirmed the order denying the motion, on the grounds that the arbitration court had no jurisdiction in the case (as discussed in the related case decided by the Supreme Court on the same day, Case No. C III 778/34).

On cassation appeal, the Supreme Court held that under the Civil Procedure Code, the state court had no authority to consider an application to remove arbitrators. The court rejected an argument based on the legislative history of the Civil Procedure Code suggesting that the state court should consider such applications, because, the court found, such evidence would contradict the text of the code. The court found that the code apparently allows the state court to intervene in arbitration cases only when expressly provided in the code. The code did not expressly provide for the state court to consider an application to remove arbitrators, and therefore such an application was impermissible. The court set aside the existing order and dismissed the application accordingly.

Excerpts from the text of the court’s ruling:

1. As the code does not mention intervention by the state court with respect to removal of arbitrators, an interpretation drawn from the justification for the code, for which the applicants argue, would be justified if there were no other provisions indicating that in any instance in which the participation of the state court in an arbitration proceeding is to be permissible, a specific provision of the code is required.

2. As the code does not specifically provide for participation by the state court in the removal of arbitrators, consideration and resolution of this matter lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitration court.

scroll up