litigation | In Principle

Since the landmark Court of Justice ruling in 2009 in C-402/07, Sturgeon, it has generally been accepted that when it comes to the right to compensation from an air carrier under the Air Passengers Rights Regulation, a flight delay of more than three hours puts the passenger in the same position as if the flight were cancelled. But in 2024, the Court of Justice held in C-474/22, Laudamotion GmbH v flightright GmbH, that the case is not so clear-cut, and there are somewhat different rights and obligations associated with flight delay than with flight cancellation.

For years, the rules limiting the extension of a claim on appeal have been a challenge for counsel determining their litigation strategy when seeking damages in tort cases. Over many years of court proceedings, the value of the claims may change as prices rise. But the Polish courts require the amount of the claims to be frozen as of the time of entering the judgment in the first instance, even though there is a long way before the end of the court dispute.

The Polish parliament has reduced the fees on some requests for a statement of the grounds for rulings in civil proceedings. In these cases, the fee has dropped from PLN 100 to PLN 30. This fee will continue to be credited against the fee payable on the appeal.

New rules for payment of court fees on requests for conciliation in Polish civil proceedings have been in effect since 28 September 2023. The parliament has heavily reduced the fees to make the institution more attractive, after it ceased to interrupt the limitations period but only suspends it.

Generally, dispute resolution is entrusted to state courts, but the parties can renounce this jurisdiction in favour of arbitration. Typically, the parties elect arbitration in an arbitration clause included in their original contract, signed well before any dispute arises. In other cases, after a dispute arises, the parties may agree to seek arbitration by signing a post-dispute referral to arbitration.

On 1 July 2023, another major amendment to the Polish Civil Procedure Code enters into force. The changes involve general provisions, consideration of the merits, interim relief, enforcement, and arbitration. In this article, we will examine the amendments to Part Five of the Civil Procedure Code—the arbitration chapter.

The Polish parliament has voted to amend the Civil Procedure Code, introducing numerous changes primarily intended to speed up proceedings. On this occasion, the parliament decided to reinstate some solutions it had abandoned in recent years. Below we discuss the most important changes.

The statute of limitations for claims arising from a contract for a specific work is regulated differently from the general rules. Pursuant to Civil Code Art. 646, these claims become time-barred two years after the work is delivered, or if the work has not been delivered, two years after it was supposed to be delivered under the contract. This is a short timeframe, and requires great care to avoid forfeiting claims—especially as the way it is counted can raise practical questions, and in some cases a three-year term is used.

Cooperation between the parties is essential to implement many contracts. This is particularly so in the case of a construction contract or a contract to produce a specific work, where the purpose of the contract is achieved over the course of a fairly complex process and comprises many elements. The Polish parliament has recognised this strong dependence and has provided a far-reaching solution applicable when the necessary cooperation is lacking. Such a situation may even lead to rescission of the contract.

Settlement is a popular and safe way of resolving civil disputes. By making concessions to each other, the parties autonomously frame the legal relationship between them and allocate the rights and obligations acceptable to them. The law in Poland also promotes this model, providing advantageous rules for parties to court proceedings allowing for return of the court fee on claims if a settlement is reached. The earlier a settlement is reached, the more of the fee can be recovered. In some cases, even the entire fee may be refunded.

A request for a payment guarantee may appear on an investor’s desk suddenly, causing numerous complications. Sometimes, contractors make such a demand to have an excuse to withdraw from the contract. Then a race against the clock begins, not to give them that excuse. But in advance, the investor can also arrange a commercial solution to the problem, i.e. a bank guarantee facility in the loan agreement.

Can a judge impartially rule in the case of a bank from which the judge has taken out a mortgage loan? Is the mere fact of holding a mortgage in Swiss francs a basis for disqualifying a judge from hearing cases seeking invalidation of mortgage loans indexed or denominated in that currency? And why is it easier to disqualify a Supreme Court judge than a lower-court judge?