POLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Justyna Kucia, Katarzyna Paczuska-Tokarska, Barnaba Skibniewski and Anna Tujakowska, Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak
elevate service standards. The key changes include the following. • Electronic communication by default: All corre - spondence – including letters, memoranda and documents – must be served electronically after the first exchange, unless the arbitral tribunal decides otherwise. Traditional service by post is no longer the default. • Expanded scope of expedited proceedings: The value threshold for expedited arbitration has increased to PLN200,000 (up from PLN50,000). Unless the parties agree otherwise, cases below this threshold will follow the expedited procedure. • No remuneration for resigning arbitrators: Arbitra - tors who resign from their post, regardless of the reason, are no longer entitled to remuneration. This change is intended to discourage unjustified withdrawals. • Presidential veto on arbitrator appointments: The President of the Court may object to the appoint - ment of an arbitrator if they determine that the nominee is not suited to properly perform arbitral duties. • Abolition of incomplete tribunal awards: If, after the close of proceedings, an arbitrator dies, resigns, is dismissed or stops participating, the panel may no longer issue an award without first being reconsti - tuted. • Initiation by request for arbitration: Proceedings may now be commenced by submitting a request for arbitration, aligning Lewiatan’s practice with international norms and simplifying case initiation. • Revised third-party joinder rules: The framework for joining third parties now mirrors the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, clarifying the legal basis for par - ticipation of additional parties in the arbitration. • Liberalised consolidation of cases: Consolidation no longer requires a shared legal relationship – cases may be joined if the parties agree, even if they concern separate claims. • Stricter award deadlines with preserved mandate: Tribunals are expected to issue awards within six months of constitution and no later than one month after the close of evidentiary proceedings. Failure to meet these deadlines does not affect the tribu - nal’s jurisdiction or validity.
• Detailed cost allocation provisions: Tribunals may now allocate procedural costs by case stage, issue or specific party conduct, offering greater flexibility and fairness in managing arbitration costs. Recent Polish Supreme Court Case Law Shaping Arbitration Practice Recent decisions by the Polish Supreme Court have addressed aspects of arbitration in Poland, includ - ing the binding effect of arbitral awards, the scope of public policy review and procedural requirements in proceedings to set aside awards. Binding effect of arbitral awards (II CSKP 48/22, 24 April 2024) The Supreme Court confirmed that a recognised or enforced arbitral award binds subsequent arbitral tri - bunals deciding disputes between the same parties. However, this binding effect is limited strictly to the operative part (disposition) of the award and does not extend to prejudicial findings made in the prior proceedings. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that res judicata applies only to the final ruling, not the reason - ing that led to it. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court also addressed whether erroneous application of interest provisions by an arbitral tribunal could jus - tify setting aside the award on public policy grounds. Given that rules on statutory interest are relatively non- mandatory, breaches typically fall outside the scope of public policy. The Supreme Court confirmed that different assessment of the maturity of the claimant’s claim by the arbitral tribunal, and consequently the date from which the claimant could demand interest, cannot lead to the setting aside of the award. It is inadmissible to examine whether the arbitral tribunal properly resolved the case in terms of facts and law. Even an incorrect interpretation of the provisions on limitation or preclusion by the arbitral tribunal is not considered a violation of the fundamental principles of the legal order. Formal defects in arbitral awards (II CSKP 283/24, 19 September 2024) The Supreme Court confirmed that the public policy allows for the review of an arbitral award only to a limited extent – that is, whether the arbitral award produced an effect inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the national legal order. It is inappropriate
644 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook