Source: http://arbitration-poland.com/case-law,7?find=true&sort=desc
Timestamp: 2018-09-21 09:59:55
Document Index: 525561829

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1206', '§1', 'Art. 58', '§1', 'Art. 1161', '§2']

« < 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 of 39 > »
Publication date: 13-05-2013 | Case no.: I ACa 1298/12
Publication date: 11-04-2013 | Case no.: I ACa 1223/12
Polish Supreme Court judgment dated 27 March 2013 V CSK 222/12
1. The regulations of the Civil Procedure Code governing arbitration are not uniform in character. The provisions governing issues involving the permissibility of a petition to set aside an award and the formal requirements and procedure for the petition are strictly procedural in nature, but the provisions setting forth the grounds for the petition, constituting the basis for the court’s ruling on the merits of the dispute and the justification for the petition, are the functional equivalent of provisions of substantive law.
2. Assertion of new grounds for the petition to set aside an arbitration award after the deadline for filing of the petition is impermissible. … The court ruling on a case seeking to set aside an arbitration award may not consider on its own motion the ground set forth in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1(1) which was not asserted in the petition and was precluded.
3. Recognizing as binding an agreement which does not specify the essential terms of the contract would be irreconcilable with the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland.
Publication date: 27-03-2013 | Case no.: V CSK 222/12
Publication date: 21-03-2013 | Case no.: I ACa 855/12
Key issues: arbitration award, arbitrator, petition to set aside arbitration award
Publication date: 25-01-2013 | Case no.: I ACa 374/12
Publication date: 23-01-2013 | Case no.: I CSK 186/12
Key issues: arbitration agreement, arbitration award, New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration award
Publication date: 12-12-2012 | Case no.: V ACz 914/12
Publication date: 30-10-2012 | Case no.: I ACa 634/12
Polish Supreme Court order dated 24 October 2012 Case No. III CSK 35/12
1. The claim for restitution of unjust enrichment pursued in this case fits within the catalogue of disputes covered by the arbitration clause, as it was stated in the agreement for provision of promotional services that the arbitration clause covers, inter alia, “claims for return of consideration provided without due grounds or not owed, arising in the event of invalidity of the agreement.” Thus if the subject of the agreement was factual activities allegedly constituting a tortious act (charging fees other than a commercial margin), the validity of such agreement should be considered in the light of Civil Code Art. 58 §1 or 2. If however the very conclusion of the agreement for provision of promotional services alongside the agreement of sale allegedly constituted an act of unfair competition, the claim stated in the statement of claim fits within the category of “tort claims, if they arise out of a legal event connected with performance of the agreement of sale or also constituting non-performance or improper performance of the agreement.” The tort claim undoubtedly arises out of a legal event (an act of unfair competition) connected with performance of the agreement of sale.
2. The mere fact of submission of a dispute for resolution by an arbitration court cannot demonstrate the inconsistency of such agreement with principles of social coexistence, because this method of dispute resolution is permissible by law. Moreover, alternative methods of resolving disputes often result in faster resolution of the dispute, which is thus less expensive and more beneficial for parties conducting business activity. Civil Procedure Code Art. 1161 §2 serves to eliminate irregularities in arbitration clauses violating the equality of the parties.
Publication date: 24-10-2012 | Case no.: III CSK 35/12
Publication date: 19-10-2012 | Case no.: V CSK 503/11