Arbitration Reform - A Perspective from Poland

In recent years, Poland has seen substantial revisions to its legal framework of arbitration proceedings. These reforms are designed to promote arbitration as a preferred and legally supported method for dispute resolution. Concurrently, key Polish arbitration courts have updated their regulations to enhance accessibility for dispute participants. This article examines the latest amendments to the Polish Civil Procedure Code (the “PCPC”) concerning arbitration as well as changes to the major arbitration courts in Poland regulations, and significant rulings by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland relevant for arbitration.

Recent Changes of Polish Civil Procedure in Favour of Arbitration

On 31 July 2019, by way of a revised Article 1163, the PCPC underwent major amendment (the “2019 Amendment”) which brought about several important modifications to the arbitration process in Poland.

A key focus of the 2019 Amendment was facilitating corporate arbitration to enable disputes on the validity of shareholder resolutions in limited liability and joint-stock companies to be arbitrable, and also by setting up a framework for resolution of these types of disputes. The 2019 Amendment:

• Confirmed the arbitrability of disputes on revocation or annulment of shareholders resolutions of limited companies;
• Specified the circle of entities bound by the arbitration agreement embodied in the articles of association of companies; and
• Proved that – apart from the company and its shareholders – also the company's bodies and their members are bound by the agreement.

These revisions eliminated the practical problem where one resolution could be – concurrently – challenged both in arbitration proceedings by a shareholder and in court proceedings by a member of the body. Therefore, the 2019 Amendment removed a significant risk of two contradictory rulings’ coexisting.

In addition, the 2019 Amendment added new formal requirements for arbitration agreements contained in the articles of association (e.g. an obligation to announce the commencement of arbitration).

Most recently, the amendment to the PCPC, dated March 9, 2023, (the “2023 Amendment”) introduced significant changes aimed at enhancing the arbitration framework generally. Notably, the 2023 Amendment introduced the conversion procedure which allows parties to convert ongoing court proceedings into arbitration upon mutual consent. According to the revised Article 1161(1) of the PCPC, parties can choose to submit their dispute to arbitration up until the case is finally resolved by the state court. This would involve the parties entering into an arbitration agreement and making a joint request for the discontinuance of the litigation.

To give effect to the conversion procedure:

• The statute of limitations for claims diverted from a state to an arbitration court begins to run anew from the date the decision to discontinue the proceedings becomes final (Article 1161(1) § 2 of the PCPC); and
• The fees for discontinued proceedings may be refunded – if the proceedings are discontinued in the court of first instance at the unanimous request of the parties following an arbitration clause, the plaintiff will receive a refund of ¾ of the lawsuit fee (Article 79(1)(2)(aa) of the Act of 28 July 2005 on Court Costs in Civil Cases).

Key Changes in Arbitration Rules

Changes to the general legal framework like the PCPC are crucial for ensuring efficient and fair legal proceedings. However, in arbitration, the significance of well-crafted and accessible rules is paramount. Arbitration chambers must provide clear and comprehensive guidelines to facilitate effective dispute resolution. Recent updates to the rules of significant arbitration courts in Poland highlight efforts to enhance the arbitration process in Poland.

The amendment to the rules of the Court of Arbitration at the Lewiatan Confederation came into effect on January 1, 2025. The most important changes are as follows:

• Initiation of Proceedings: The new rules allow the proceedings to be initiated by a request for arbitration (and not just a statement of claim);
• Expedited Procedure: Upper limit for qualifying a case for the expedited procedure has been raised from PLN 50,000 to PLN 200,000; and
• Electronic Submissions: All documents can now be submitted electronically, except for the initial request for arbitration or statement of claim.

The new rules of the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (SAKIG) also came into effect with the beginning of 2025. The key changes are:

• Electronic Mail: The tribunal is now authorized to decide that documents during the proceedings will be served exclusively via electronic mail;
• Sole Arbitrator: Disputes with a value not exceeding PLN 100,000 shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator;
• Early Determination Procedure: Introduced for clear-cut cases;
• Ad Hoc Arbitrator: The institution of an ad hoc arbitrator has been introduced; and
• Award Issuance: Awards must be issued within six months (not nine, as previously) from the appointment of the arbitration tribunal, and no later than two months from the last hearing or the submission of the last document, whichever comes first.

These comprehensive updates to the arbitration rules underscore a commitment to modernizing the arbitration process in Poland, making it more efficient, flexible, and responsive to the needs of contemporary dispute resolution. 

Significant Rulings of Poland's Supreme Court

Supreme Court rulings play a key role in shaping the Polish legal system, including the promotion of arbitration as an effective method of dispute resolution.

On 12 April 2024, the Supreme Court ruled on case no. II CSKP 1099/22 regarding the formal requirements for an application to declare the enforceability of a foreign arbitral award. A foreign company applied for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. However, it only provided a regular copy of the arbitration clause, instead of the original or a certified copy (as required by Article 1213 § 1 of the PCPC) – the parties signed their copies of the clauses and exchanged scans. Initially, the application was denied due to the lack of the original arbitration clause. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, stating that if the existence of the arbitration clause is undisputed, the requirement to provide the original document becomes unnecessary. This is an important step towards simplifying and making the recognition proceedings less formal.

In a ruling of 15 September 2020, case no. I CSK 182/20, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of setting-aside proceedings in the case of S. v. W. The Court stated that common courts cannot examine whether the arbitral award was based on correctly established facts or correctly interpreted substantive law norms. The review of the award in terms of compliance with the public order clause relates to the content of the award itself, not the manner in which the arbitral tribunal conducted the proceedings. This on the other hand is a firm vote in favor of limiting the setting aside of arbitral awards issued.

Conclusion

These amendments represent a significant advancement for arbitration in Poland, reflecting a commitment to aligning with best practices and addressing the evolving needs of arbitration users. Recent changes to the rules of major Polish arbitration courts aim to modernize and enhance arbitration procedures.

The jurisprudence of the Polish Supreme Court demonstrates its role in fostering the development of arbitration, ensuring its accessibility and reliability. This provides assurance to entities choosing Poland as an arbitration venue regarding the conduct of potential post-arbitration proceedings.

By modernizing the arbitration process and aligning with international standards, Poland is enhancing its appeal as a venue for alternative dispute resolution. The Polish arbitration environment, encompassing both the legal framework and arbitration tribunals, is well-equipped to handle large-scale and complex disputes across various business sectors.

This article was originally published on Daily Jus on Wednesday 5th of March, with thanks to Jus Mundi & Jus Connect.