This article focuses on the assessment of admissibility of conciliatory proceedings (regulated in Articles 184 to 186 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure), in a situation where the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement. The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate whether conciliatory proceedings are examination proceedings or independent proceedings, wherein the parties resolve the dispute between them in the form of a settlement. A short description and comparison of conciliatory proceedings and proceedings before an arbitral tribunal has been provided. The author has highlighted the differences between the two proceedings, and the consequences arising therefrom for the admissibility of alternative conduct of those two proceedings to resolve the same case. The author has also analysed whether the regulations currently in force offer the parties the freedom or right to choose that alternative method which is more convenient for them. It has been analysed whether a plea of arbitration agreement, if raised, forms a relative formal and procedural obstacle excluding the admissibility of conciliatory proceedings. Thus, this article discusses issues relating to systemic connections between conciliatory and arbitration proceedings, and to the relations between those proceedings.
This paper analyses grounds for binding non-signatory companies by an arbitration agreement signed by another company from the same group of companies. It discusses certain doctrines created by state courts and arbitral tribunals to fill the gap in domestic regulations. Among them there is a group of companies doctrine, equitable estoppel and connected with it good faith doctrine as well as piercing the corporate veil. Purposes of these doctrines may seem similar, however, prerequisites as well as effects of their application are different. The most frequently used criteria include abuse, circumvention or violation of law or rules of equity as well as acting and behaving like a party to the contract that the company has not signed. The criterion of the purpose of law is also important. At the same time, a necessary condition is the existence of strong corporate connections between a company that has not signed the contract and at least one of the formal parties to the contract as well as significant under-capitalization of a subsidiary company. Binding non-signatory related companies on the basis of these doctrines may lead to the attribution of legal or contractual obligations or to assigning responsibility for actions or intentions. This may result in the assignment of obligations or liability of the company to its shareholder or vice versa, as well as relativisation of the separateness between two related companies that are not in the relationship of domination or dependence. The doctrines discussed in the paper aim at protecting the law against abuse and avoiding unfair decisions. Excessive vagueness of the prerequisites for their application may, however, lead to legal uncertainty and, as a result, threaten the security of trade. Therefore, such premises need to be defined as precisely as possible on the basis of objective criteria.
On May 21st 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide decided whether the application of jurisdiction clauses in actions for damages impedes the effective enforcement of EU competition law. The CJ stayed silent, however, on how to treat arbitration clauses, which similarly to jurisdiction clauses, exclude a default court jurisdiction. The question of how to interpret arbitration agreements in the event of an antitrust violation and subsequent actions for damages remains thus unanswered. In light of the foreseen increase in private enforcement of EU competition law, this problem gains significance. This is because arbitration agreements may be frequently used to govern commercial relationships between antitrust infringers and their injured direct contractors. Against this background, the paper aims to analyse the consequences brought about by the existence of arbitration clauses in the event of actions for antitrust damages. It seeks to answer two questions: whether the claims for antitrust damages can be per se arbitrated, and whether the general arbitration clauses used by the parties to regulate their commercial relations cover the actions for antitrust damages. In order to address these problems, the papers draws attention to the CJ’s interpretation of jurisdiction clauses and the Polish experience of interpreting the scope of arbitration agreements in the field of unfair competition law. The paper reaches the conclusion that neither the arbitration nor EU law prevent arbitrating actions for antitrust damages. Whether a specific arbitration agreement covers actions for antitrust damages or not can be analyzed only with reference to the will of the parties interpreted under applicable national law. It is believed, however, that there are many reasons to adopt an arbitration-friendly interpretation of vague arbitration agreements.
Pozasądowe rozstrzyganie sporów konsumenckich jest elementem polityki ochrony konsumenta w ramach integracji europejskiej. Na początku tekstu Rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady Europy (UE) Nr 524/2013 z dnia 21 maja 2013 [Rozporządzenie…, 2013] znalazło się stwierdzenie, że konsumenci to najważniejsi uczestnicy rynku wewnętrznego, zatem powinni w nim zajmować kluczową pozycję. Oceniając atrakcyjność rynkową przedsiębiorcy, konsument bierze pod uwagę nie tylko jakość oferowanych produktów i usług, ale także sposób rozwiązywania sporów z udziałem konsumentów. W tym kontekście nie ulega wątpliwości, że ochrona konsumenta leży nie tylko w interesie jego samego, ale jest istotnym czynnikiem z racji funkcjonowania przedsiębiorstwa na rynku towarów i usług. Przedmiotem artykułu jest analiza podstawowych problemów i nowych regulacji prawnych dotyczących pozasądowych metod rozwiązywania sporów między przedsiębiorcą a konsumentem. Liczba regulacji prawnych związanych z ochroną konsumenta wciąż rośnie, rośnie także zakres obowiązków przedsiębiorcy wobec konsumenta. Ten stan rzeczy może zakłócać prawidłowe relacje między interesami przedsiębiorcy a interesami konsumenta. Mnogość regulacji komplikuje status prawny konsumenta jako ostatniego ogniwa w procesie wymiany dóbr i usług. Zwiększenie zakresu realnej ochrony interesów konsumenta, a pośrednio i przedsiębiorcy jest możliwe dzięki szerszemu wykorzystaniu pozasądowych metod rozwiązywania sporów między konsumentem a przedsiębiorcą. Metody te mogą być korzystne dla obu podmiotów rynku, o czym traktują przedstawione niżej rozważania. W związku z tym, że rozważania zawarte w artykule przede wszystkim wiążą się z zasadami funkcjonowania instytucji prawnych, przytoczone dane mają charakter ilustracyjny.
EN
The paper is focused on legal and economic aspects of alternative methods of resolving disputes between an entrepreneur and a consumer. Consumers are a necessary element of an enterprise in terms of the objective approach. Moreover, they raise the market value of a company. In this context, there is no doubt that consumer protection is in their own interest but is also an important factor from the point of view of an enterprise and an entrepreneur. The number of legal provisions protecting the consumer increases every year, broadening the scope of entrepreneurs’ duties. This can distort the proper relationship between the interests of businesses and consumers. The specific nature of legal relations, the multitude of legal institutions, and the expanding circle of persons covered by consumer protection laws, all make the status of the consumer as the last link of the process of exchange of goods and services much more complicated. Increasing the range of consumer protection and, indirectly, protection of the entrepreneur is possible through a wider use of alternative methods of resolving disputes between consumers and entrepreneurs. These methods can be beneficial for both sides, which is discussed in the following paper.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.