Interes prawny w powództwie o ustalenie w postępowaniu przed sądem polubownym : glosa do wyroku SA KIG 193/05

Sto lat polskiego prawa handlowego : księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Andrzejowi Kidybie. T. 2 / redakcja naukowa Małgorzata Dumkiewicz, Katarzyna Kopaczyńska-Pieczniak, Jerzy Szczotka s. 777-786.

Wyrok arbitrażowy w czasie pandemii : dopuszczalność współczesnych form elektronicznych

Przegląd Prawa Handlowego 2020, nr 7, s. 24-31.

The author examines whether an award signed electronically can be deemed to constitute an award in writing as provided for in Article 1197 of the Polish Civil Code, which reflects Article 31 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Her conclusion is that an electronic signature as such is functionally equivalent to the written signature. That said, not all types of electronic signatures can be admitted in this respect. The eIDAS Regulation (Regulation No. 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services) provides for three types of electronic signature: regular, advanced and qualified, stating that the qualified signature should be deemed as equivalent to the written signature. The author is of the opinion that both the advanced and qualified electronic signatures fulfil the requirements of the form ‘in writing’, ensuring the safeguards listed in Article 26 of the Regulation, specifically: it is uniquely linked to the signatory; it is capable of identifying the signatory; it is created using electronic signature creation data that the signatory can, with a high level of confidence, use under his/her sole control; and it is linked to the data signed therewith in such a way that any subsequent change in the data is detectable.

Uwagi na temat decyzji trybunału arbitrażowego w sprawie Vattenfall AB and others przeciwko Federal Republic of Germany z 31.8.2018 r. co do znaczenia sprawy Achmea

ADR Arbitraż i Mediacja 2020, nr 2, s. 15-35.

Współautorstwo: Czech, Konrad

The article comments on the Decision on the Achmea Issue in the Vattenfall case dated 29 August 2018. It examines the background of the Vattenfall decision and analyses EU treaties and the Achmea ruling vis-á-vis the Energy Charter Treaty and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In the light of discussed treaties, the authors submit that the Vattenfall tribunal had no other option than to sustain its jurisdiction.