Poland is awarded costs for its in-house counsel

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Emergency decision did not touch upon applicability of sunset clause from terminated intra-EU BIT

Given time constraints, emergency arbitrator is unable to carry out fact-heavy inquiry required to confirm existence of investment before BIT was terminated

Poland consented to emergency arbitration in BIT

Deadlines are pushed back, but emergency decision is rendered within 13 days

Background: Poland enacts national sanctions regime to “de-russify” its economy

Cour de cassation recalls that set-aside courts cannot review merits of challenged awards

Investor contends that lower court has misconstrued the award, contradicted itself, and erred when reviewing the merits of the case

Russian court restrains Czech Net4Gas from pursuing arbitration against Gazprom Export, under threat of 113 million EUR fine

Polish companies face 900 million USD compensation claim before Russian courts

Considering evolution of law on intra-EU arbitration after the arbitration was filed, Poland is ordered to pay costs of set-aside proceedings; judgment may be appealed

Court sees no reason to uphold arbitrator’s ruling on costs; Court declines Poland’s request to remand the case before the arbitration tribunal

Judge Homqvist considers that there may be situations in which an intra-EU award involving non-EU claimants may be set aside only partially – but not in this case

Invalidity of award on intra-EU grounds encompasses entire award, even insofar as it concerns non-EU investor

Dispute with Poland in which 4 out of 5 claimants hail from the EU is intra-EU in nature, thus the award’s enforcement is contrary to Swedish public policy

Investors’ challenge against costs decision in award is admissible

Parties may reach agreement that award is invalid – but not that it is valid

At set-aside stage, parties agree on intra-EU objection, but not on its consequences; Svea court stays award’s enforcement

Background: Investors apply for set-aside of costs award in favor of Poland

Background: Lien for unpaid taxes prompted treaty-based claims

Court limits payment order to the minimum, seeing an EU law obligation by Poland to fight the arbitration

Procedural calendar of arbitration and nature of the request rule out any urgency

Court of appeal sees no manifest error in judgment of first instance

Poland’s request is not conservatory in nature

Dutch procedural law requires that interim measures decisions issued by appeals courts must be aligned with previous judgment on the merits, save in specific circumstances

Archives