{"id":291059,"date":"2026-06-05T18:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=291059"},"modified":"2026-06-08T16:39:52","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T14:39:52","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-poland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/05\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-poland\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – Poland"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Aleksandra Kozerska<\/strong>, Associate, Queritius<\/a><\/strong>
Jan Dziurzy\u0144ski<\/strong>, Master of Law Candidate, University of Warsaw<\/strong>
Justyna Sikora<\/strong>, Associate, White & Case<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, arbitration in Poland has seen further, steady development, encompassing both the stabilisation of case law and the growing role of technology in arbitral proceedings. The country maintains a strong and stable position as an important hub for international arbitration in the Central and Eastern European (\u201cCEE<\/strong>\u201d) region.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This report provides an overview of developments in the fields of commercial and investment arbitration, as well as highlights technological innovations on the Polish arbitration market.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Developments in Commercial Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Polish Supreme Court on the Separability Principle, Jurisdiction Objections, and Restitution Claims under Polish Law<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On 24 January 2025, the Polish Supreme Court issued a\u00a0Judgment<\/a>\u00a0in case no.\u00a0II CSKP\u202f440\/23<\/em>\u00a0concerning the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Poland. The dispute arose from a long-standing commercial relationship in the cocoa industry. The parties concluded agreements that contained arbitration clauses. Even though the agreements were never formally signed, the parties nevertheless began performing them, with deliveries made and orders partially executed. While the commercial dealings between the parties were still ongoing, the claimant, believing the buyer breached the agreements, initiated arbitration proceedings and obtained a favourable award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court confirmed several key aspects of Polish arbitration law, including the rules on enforcement. First, it reaffirmed the principle of separability of the arbitration agreement, which must be assessed independently from the underlying contract, as prescribed by Article 1180 \u00a7 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (\u201cCCP<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the Court confirmed that if a party takes part in arbitration without objecting to the tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction or the validity of the arbitration agreement, it will lose the right to challenge them in subsequent enforcement proceedings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, the Court clarified that, under Polish civil procedure, restitution claims, i.e., claims to recover amounts paid under an immediately enforceable award which is subsequently annulled or amended, cannot be adjudicated during enforcement proceedings. Enforcement proceedings do not involve a merits review, and the court may not reassess the obligations that form the subject of the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Polish Supreme Court on the Ability of an Assignee to Seek Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On 23 May 2025, the Polish Supreme Court issued an important\u00a0Decision<\/a>\u00a0in case no.\u00a0II CSKP 2065\/22<\/em>, offering some valuable clarifications as to how an assignee may prove an assignment when seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Poland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case concerned a claimant who sought enforcement of a foreign arbitral award that had been acquired by way of an assignment agreement. In the  first instance, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that the claimant (the assignee) did not demonstrate that the assignment had been concluded within the form required under Article 788 \u00a7 1 CCP. This provision applies when a claim or obligation has been transferred to another person after a domestically enforceable title has been created. It requires the transfer to be proven by an official document or by a private document with an official certification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court overturned that ruling. It explained that the strict requirements of Article 788 \u00a7 1 CCP do not apply to proceedings concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. According to the Court, a legal successor of a party involved in the arbitration proceedings may act in place of the original creditor by virtue of the very nature of legal succession, without the need to meet the formal requirements applicable to domestic enforcement titles. The Court further emphasized that a foreign arbitral award is not an enforceable title until its enforceability has been declared in Poland, making Article 788 \u00a7 1 CCP procedurally inapplicable at this stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court held that under Polish law, an assignee can demonstrate that a transfer of a claim has been made using general evidentiary principles, without submitting formally officialised documents as evidence. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision is regarded as a valuable clarification of Polish procedural law, particularly in cases where successors of the original parties to the arbitration seek to enforce foreign arbitral awards in Poland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Developments in Investment Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, Poland was involved in a significant number of investment arbitration cases. Below, we highlight the most notable examples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Poland Prevailed in a Potash Investment Arbitration\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0Honwood v. Poland<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0\u00a0an\u00a0ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)<\/a>\u00a0investment arbitration tribunal comprising\u00a0Aloysius Llamzon<\/a>,\u00a0Philippe Sands<\/a>, and\u00a0Lucy Reed<\/a>\u00a0(Presiding) issued an\u00a0Award<\/a>\u00a0dated 28 March 2025, declaring\u00a0Poland<\/a> victorious in a USD 300 million dispute against the Cyprus-based investor \u2013 Honwood Services Limited (\u201cClaimant<\/strong>\u201d).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case, commenced in 2017, was based on the\u00a0Agreement between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Poland for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments executed on 4 June 1992<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cCyprus-Poland BIT<\/strong>\u201d). The Cyprus-Poland BIT is an older-style treaty that limits arbitration to disputes concerning expropriation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the Award is not (yet) publicly available, on 5 May 2025, Polish Ministry of Climate and Environment (pl.\u00a0Ministerstwo Klimatu i \u015arodowiska<\/em>) issued a\u00a0press<\/a>\u00a0release<\/a>\u00a0explaining the background of the dispute and the determinations reached by the tribunal in the Award. The case concerned claims arising from the refusal to grant a concession to Darley Energy Polska sp. z o.o., Claimant\u2019s subsidiary, for the exploration and identification of potassium-magnesium salt (potash) deposits in the Puck region (Poland), and subsequently awarding that concession to KGHM PM S.A. (whose largest shareholder is the Polish State). The Claimant alleged that Poland had violated the Cyprus-Poland BIT\u2019s provisions on protection against\u00a0expropriation<\/a>, as well as the obligations of\u00a0fair and equitable treatment<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cFET<\/strong>\u201d) and\u00a0full protection and security<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cFPS<\/strong>\u201d) of investments. The arbitral tribunal found no expropriation and determined that the actions of the Polish concession authority \u201cdid not go beyond the public interest, were in accordance with the procedure and were not discriminatory or arbitrary<\/em>\u201d. The tribunal also confirmed that claims other than on expropriation fell outside of its jurisdiction. Interestingly,\u00a0the\u00a0tribunal\u00a0dismissed<\/a>\u00a0both the State\u2019s Achmea-based intra-EU jurisdictional objection and the inadmissibility objection based on an abuse of rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue of the tribunal\u2019s composition added noteworthy aspects to the dispute. Initially, the Tribunal was chaired by the late\u00a0James Crawford<\/a>, with\u00a0Kaj Hob\u00e9r<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Philippe Sands<\/a>\u00a0serving as co-arbitrators. In 2021, however, the Claimant unexpectedly challenged its own appointee, Mr. Hob\u00e9r, after learning of his undisclosed role on a tribunal that dismissed a similar claim, brought by another Cypriot investor against Poland. The challenge resulted in an ICC\u2019s\u00a0decision<\/a> disqualifying Mr. Hob\u00e9r from the proceedings and the subsequent appointment of Aloysius Llamzon. Additionally, Lucy Reed replaced judge Crawford upon his passing in 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

US Court Declines to Enforce Intra-EU Award Against Poland Set Aside in Sweden<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0US District Court for the District of Columbia<\/a>\u00a0declined to enforce an arbitral Award in\u00a0Mercuria Energy Group v. Poland (II)<\/a><\/em>\u00a0rendered under the\u00a0Energy Charter Treaty 1994<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cECT<\/strong>\u201d). The refusal was based on the fact that the Award had previously been set aside at the seat of arbitration in Sweden. Two very interesting conclusions stem from this Judgment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n