This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, 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.
THE AUTHORS:
Aleksandra Kozerska, Associate, Queritius
Jan Dziurzyński, Master of Law Candidate, University of Warsaw
Justyna Sikora, Associate, White & Case
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 (“CEE”) region.
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.
Developments in Commercial Arbitration
Polish Supreme Court on the Separability Principle, Jurisdiction Objections, and Restitution Claims under Polish Law
On 24 January 2025, the Polish Supreme Court issued a Judgment in case no. II CSKP 440/23 concerning 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.
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 § 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”).
Second, the Court confirmed that if a party takes part in arbitration without objecting to the tribunal’s jurisdiction or the validity of the arbitration agreement, it will lose the right to challenge them in subsequent enforcement proceedings.
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.
Polish Supreme Court on the Ability of an Assignee to Seek Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award
On 23 May 2025, the Polish Supreme Court issued an important Decision in case no. II CSKP 2065/22, offering some valuable clarifications as to how an assignee may prove an assignment when seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Poland.
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 § 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.
The Supreme Court overturned that ruling. It explained that the strict requirements of Article 788 § 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 § 1 CCP procedurally inapplicable at this stage.
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.
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.
Developments in Investment Arbitration
In 2025, Poland was involved in a significant number of investment arbitration cases. Below, we highlight the most notable examples.
Poland Prevailed in a Potash Investment Arbitration
In Honwood v. Poland, an ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) investment arbitration tribunal comprising Aloysius Llamzon, Philippe Sands, and Lucy Reed (Presiding) issued an Award dated 28 March 2025, declaring Poland victorious in a USD 300 million dispute against the Cyprus-based investor – Honwood Services Limited (“Claimant”).
The case, commenced in 2017, was based on the Agreement between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Poland for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments executed on 4 June 1992 (“Cyprus-Poland BIT”). The Cyprus-Poland BIT is an older-style treaty that limits arbitration to disputes concerning expropriation.
While the Award is not (yet) publicly available, on 5 May 2025, Polish Ministry of Climate and Environment (pl. Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska) issued a press release explaining 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’s 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’s provisions on protection against expropriation, as well as the obligations of fair and equitable treatment (“FET”) and full protection and security (“FPS”) of investments. The arbitral tribunal found no expropriation and determined that the actions of the Polish concession authority “did not go beyond the public interest, were in accordance with the procedure and were not discriminatory or arbitrary”. The tribunal also confirmed that claims other than on expropriation fell outside of its jurisdiction. Interestingly, the tribunal dismissed both the State’s Achmea-based intra-EU jurisdictional objection and the inadmissibility objection based on an abuse of rights.
The issue of the tribunal’s composition added noteworthy aspects to the dispute. Initially, the Tribunal was chaired by the late James Crawford, with Kaj Hobér and Philippe Sands serving as co-arbitrators. In 2021, however, the Claimant unexpectedly challenged its own appointee, Mr. Hobér, 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’s decision disqualifying Mr. Hobér from the proceedings and the subsequent appointment of Aloysius Llamzon. Additionally, Lucy Reed replaced judge Crawford upon his passing in 2021.
US Court Declines to Enforce Intra-EU Award Against Poland Set Aside in Sweden
The US District Court for the District of Columbia declined to enforce an arbitral Award in Mercuria Energy Group v. Poland (II) rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty 1994 (“ECT”). 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:
- The US court took a side in the highly contentious debate over whether arbitral awards may be enforced if they had been set aside at the seat of arbitration. The US court reasoned that judgments that have set aside underlying awards may be ignored only when they are “repugnant to the fundamental notions of what is decent and just”. This seems to be in line with the minority view of the arbitration community, allowing enforcement of set aside awards in exceptional circumstances, as has been found by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case 2025 arbitration survey; and
- In the US, the intra-EU prohibition of investment arbitration established by Komstroy v. Moldova (“Komstroy”)and Achmea v. Slovakia (“Achmea”) CJEU judgments does not qualify as “repugnant to the fundamental notions of what is decent and just”.
Dutch Court Orders Dutch Investor to Terminate its Claim against Poland
In LC Corp v. Poland, on 22 April, the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered LC Corp, a Dutch company, to terminate its initiated intra-EU investment arbitration proceedings against the Republic of Poland. The claim was brought against Poland in December 2020 on the basis of the sunset clause of the Agreement between the Kingdom of Netherlands and the Republic of Poland on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments (1992) (“Netherlands-Poland BIT”) where the investor alleged expropriation and unfair and discriminatory treatment from Polish Authorities.
Poland has terminated the Netherlands-Poland BIT in 2019, following the Achmea Judgment, while both Poland and the Netherlands have signed the EU Agreement for the termination of intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (“Termination Agreement”) in 2021. Hence, after LC Corp had initiated the arbitration, Poland brought actions before the Dutch Courts.
The Court of Appeal found that the arbitration and sunset clauses of the Netherlands-Poland BIT were no longer valid due to their incompatibility with EU law. It emphasised that the choice of London as the seat of arbitration – outside of the EU jurisdiction – combined with the tendency of arbitral tribunals to disregard the Achmea Judgment and the Termination Agreement, exposes Poland to a real risk of infringement proceedings by the European Commission, since any enforcement against Polish assets located outside the EU could be viewed as granting unlawful state aid.
Thus, the Court of Appeal found LC Corp obligated under Dutch civil law to discontinue the investment arbitration; ordered LC Corp to terminate the arbitration proceedings and imposed a daily penalty of EUR 100.000 for non-compliance with its order, with the cap of EUR 10 million.
Huawei Notifies Poland about a Potential Claim
Chinese telecoms firm Huawei Technologies has formally notified the Polish government that it reserves the right to initiate arbitration proceedings under the ECT if Poland adopts a proposed amendment to its Cybersecurity Act (the “Amendment”). The Amendment implements the European Union NIS2 Directive 2022/2555 and designates “high-risk suppliers” for critical sectors.
In its letter of 15 October 2025, Huawei Technologies Cooperatief U.A., the Dutch parent company holding 90% of the shares in Huawei Polska cites the views of “leading enterprises” that the proposed criteria for identifying high-risk suppliers are discriminatory, disproportionately aimed at non-EU and non-NATO companies, and risk excluding Huawei from key sectors such as telecommunications, energy, health care and water, thereby potentially infringing its treaty-based investment protections. The company estimates the financial impact of the proposed law could reach into billions of Polish zloty and has urged constructive dialogue with Poland to consider the influence of the proposed Amendment on the foreign investors. Arbitration, as Huawei emphasizes, would only be a “last resort”.
AI in Polish Arbitration Courts
Ultima Ratio, a platform for conducting arbitration disputes, has announced this year that its arbitrators are using artificial intelligence to issue awards in arbitration proceedings. The platform serves as the exclusive venue for arbitration proceedings before the Electronic Arbitration and Mediation Centre at the Association of Notaries of the Republic of Poland in Warsaw and the Online Arbitration Court in Bratislava. By using AI in its operation, the platform advertises shortening the time spent by the arbitrators on issuing the award from 3 hours to a few seconds, claiming to save 95% of the time spent on the award drafting. The AI used by Ultima Ratio is presented to learn both from cases adjudicated by national courts and cases assessed by arbitrators of Ultima Ratio, while the AI is supposed to ensure impartiality and quality of objective focus on the facts and legal rules. The specifics of how the AI operates are, however, not disclosed, nor are they described in the Ultima Ratio Arbitration Rules.
Polish Arbitration Law remains silent on the use of artificial intelligence tools. Nevertheless, if any dispute arises in the context of AI use by arbitrators during enforcement or annulment proceedings, Polish courts will have to take a stance, placing them at the forefront of the debate on the use of AI in arbitration.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Aleksandra Kozerska is an associate at Queritius, a highly specialized law firm focused on international dispute resolution. She holds a Master of Law from the University of Warsaw and an LL.B. in European Law from Maastricht University. Aleksandra is also a trainee advocate with the Warsaw Bar and a member of Poland VYAP.
Jan Dziurzyński is a Master of Law candidate at the University of Warsaw, currently doing an Erasmus exchange at the University of Oslo. He is a co-founder and President of the University of Warsaw Moot Association, overseeing moot court activities and organising educational initiatives within the field of international arbitration at the University. Moreover, he is a member of Poland VYAP and a former participant of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, where he was awarded with Honourable Mentions for Best Speaker, Best Team, and Best Respondent Memorandum.
Justyna Sikora is an associate in the White & Case International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution practice as well as an advocate trainee at the Warsaw Bar. She specializes in international commercial arbitration and international private and business law. The cases she has dealt with primarily involve post-M&A, energy, and construction claims (mainly under the ICC Rules of Arbitration). She is a member of Poland VYAP, Young ICCA, and a seasoned mooter that remains associated with the Jessup, Vis, and FDI mooting communities.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
