The Supreme Court Judgments and Decisions of Appellate Courts - Poland - Czech and Central European Yearbook of Arbitration - Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators - 2014

Author(s):

Maciej Durbas

Kuba Gąsiorowski

Kamil Zawicki

Page Count:

18 pages

Media Description:

1 PDF Download

Published:

February, 2014

PDF168.89 KB

$40.00

Description:

Originally from Czech and Central European Yearbook of Arbitration - 2014: Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators

Preview Page

1. Party Cannot Invoke New Grounds for Setting

Aside the Award after the Lapse of the Time

Period for Filing the Recourse (Supreme Court

(Sąd Najwyższy) Civil Chamber Decision, Case

No. V CSK 222/12 of March, 27 2013)2

Key words:

arbitration award | annulment of the award | domestic arbitration |

judicial review | polish arbitration law | public policy | review of

arbitral award | state courts

States Involved:

[POL] - [Poland];

Laws Taken into Account in This Ruling:

Kodeks postępowania cywilnego z dnia 17 listopada 1964 r. [Code

of Civil Procedure of November, 17 1964] [k.p.c.] [POL], published in:

Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 1964, No. 43, item 296, as amended;

Articles: 1206 § 1 point 1; Article 1206 § 2 point 2;3 Article 1208 § 1 and 2;

16.01. Party cannot invoke new grounds for setting aside the award after the

lapse of the time period for filing the recourse. The state court deciding

on the recourse cannot take into account ex officio grounds set forward

in art. 1206 § 1 point 1 k.p.c. that were not raised in the recourse.

16.02. Finding that a contract is binding even when it does not contain its

necessary elements would be contrary to the basic principles of public

policy of the Republic of Poland.

[Description of Facts and Legal Issues]

16.03. On June 26, 2007, two Polish companies, P and I entered into a

framework agreement aimed at creating an environment for concluding

options contracts on the financial market. On July 11, 2008 the parties

entered into an additional agreement securing I’s claims against P.

16.04. According to the framework agreement, option contracts were

concluded during a telephone conversation and later on I sent to P a

confirmation in writing, which P had to send back to I. The lack or

resending was treated as a tacit acceptance. P was obligated to pay a

premium in case of buying put options and I was obligated to pay one in

case of call options. Each party gained certain right (put or call option)

according to conditions set forward by the party to ensure the reciprocity

of the transaction. The remuneration was meant to be equal and subject

to set off. In any other case, a party was obligated to pay the difference.

16.05. From August 1, 2007 to October 3, 2008 parties entered into a number
of transactions according to the abovementioned conditions. Twelve of