POLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Justyna Kucia, Katarzyna Paczuska-Tokarska, Barnaba Skibniewski and Anna Tujakowska, Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak
5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention The role of common courts in addressing the issues of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal is threefold. Firstly, a court will address the issue of an arbitral tri - bunal’s jurisdiction if a party files a claim to a state court and the respondent asks the court to reject the claim, arguing that the dispute is subject to an arbitra - tion agreement and thus cannot be heard by the state court. The court will reject the claim unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is defective or the tribunal had already declined its jurisdiction. Secondly, if the arbitral tribunal issues a positive deci - sion on jurisdiction (ie, a decision rejecting the chal - lenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction), either of the parties may challenge such decision by bringing the appeal to the state court. The common courts do not review arbitral tribunals’ negative decisions on jurisdiction. Thirdly, the common court reviews the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in post-arbitral proceedings on the setting-aside, recognition or enforcement of the arbi - tral award. 5.3 Timing of Challenge If the arbitral tribunal issues a positive decision on jurisdiction (ie, a decision rejecting the challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction), either of the parties may challenge such decision by bringing the appeal to the state court within two weeks of the arbitral tribunal’s decision. The state court can also address the issue of an arbi - tral tribunal’s jurisdiction in post-arbitral proceedings on the setting-aside, recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award. There is no deadline to file for the recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award. The party can bring an action before a common court to set aside the award for a period of two months after delivery of the award. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility In general, Polish courts tend to apply the de novo standard of review for questions of jurisdiction, while typically referring to the facts as established by the tribunal. However, the standard of judicial review for
Any provision in the arbitration agreement that modi - fies the aforementioned powers of the court is inef - fective. Polish law does not establish an exhaustive catalogue of reasons for the exclusion of an arbitrator. An arbitra - tor may be excluded when there are circumstances that raise reasonable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, as well as when they lack the qualifica - tions set out in the parties’ agreement. The Interna - tional Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration are often relied on when determining whether the “reasonable doubts” In Poland, arbitrators must maintain independence and impartiality. They are required to submit a written statement of their impartiality and independence upon accepting their role. Throughout the entire arbitration process, the appointed arbitrator must promptly dis - close to the parties any circumstances that could raise doubts about their impartiality or independence. The proper test for verifying whether an arbitrator may be deemed independent and impartial is whether the circumstances related to that arbitrator raise objec - tive, reasonable doubts about the arbitrator’s impar - tiality and independence. In addition, the parties may contractually agree on the requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrator. If it turns out that the arbitrator does not have such qualifications, the arbitrator may be excluded from hearing the case. standard for exclusion is met. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements
5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
Polish law applies the principle of competence-com - petence ( kompetenz-kompetenz ). The CPC explicitly stipulates that the arbitral tribunal may determine its own jurisdiction, including the existence, validity or effectiveness of an arbitration agreement, as well as rule on a party’s challenge to jurisdiction.
634 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook