The paper discusses case law and opinions of legal commentators on the growing phenomenon of extension of rights and obligations arising under agreements to arbitrate and arbitral awards to members of group of companies, their shareholders and stakeholders who are not signatories of the agreement to arbitrate. At the outset of the paper, the author argues that the group of company’s doctrine constitutes just one example of a liberal trend of widening the realm of arbitrability and jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals. The author points out that this trend cannot be
explained only in terms of requirements of modern business but — at least to certain extent — by the inability of the court system to cope with the growing number of litigations and the economic interests of the arbitration community (i.e. arbitrators, legal counsels and other providers of services in the field of the private system of dispute resolution). The paper analyses legal theories aimed at justifying extension of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards to the non -signatories (i.e. implied contract, piercing corporate veil, ostensible authority, alter ego doctrine, etc.). The author opines that none of these theories justify a departure from the basic principle that the touchstone of arbitration is a freely negotiated agreement of the parties to arbitrate. This principle also applies to
a situation when a third party intends to join an existing agreement to arbitrate. Binding non -signatories by an arbitration agreement is conceivable in the event the law makers so decide in justified circumstances (e.g. Art. 1163 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The author also advocates that the concept of collateral estoppel should be implemented in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure in order to extend the principle of res indicata to persons having sufficient commonality of interests with the parties to a final court or arbitral judgement.

Determining the subjective and personal scope of an arbitration agreement is a substantial issue considering the disputed case, and one of fundamental importance with respect to the enforcement of the future arbitral award. The provisions of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (PCCP) delineate situations in which, because the arbitral award considers issues not covered by the arbitration agreement, or because it exceeds the agreement, set -aside proceedings may be instituted, or the enforcement of the award may be denied. This article considers whether, de lege lata, in light of the PCCP, there are solutions to the frequent situations where the non -signatories of an arbitration agreement can be bound by it or, regardless of the subjective scope of the arbitration agreement, the application of an arbitration agreement could be accepted by conduct. The author also studies the issue de lege ferenda, whether, in light of the Polish arbitration law, given recent developments in international arbitration law concerning the formal requirement of arbitration agreements, the acceptance of an arbitration agreement by conduct could be possible.

Article is devoted to the impact of legal succession of the subject of dispute in the course of proceedings before arbitration court. The author describes the views of doctrine presented in this field. Finally, he assumes that, although the arbitration court is not bound by the provisions of the state court proceedings, it is the most appropriate for the arbitration to apply rules which are in force in the state court proceedings regarding legal succession of the subject of dispute.

The Author describes the turbulent fate of the amendment to the 2011 PIL Act (O.J. of 15.04.2011, No 80, item 432) presented both in the Parliament and the Senate, concerning same -sex marriages and cohabiting couples. Pursuant to the amendment, those concerned that the conflict of laws rule provided in the article 48 of said act („The ability to conclude a marriage is determined towards each of the parties by the law of his or her nationality as of the day when the marriage is concluded”) would lead to a necessity of recognition of foreign homosexual relationships, opted for introduction of a legal definition of marriage understood as a relationship between a man and a woman, as well as for addition of a specific ordre public clause forbidding the application of any foreign rules of law on homosexual relationships. As a matter of fact, such proposal’s goal is to create a legal gap in the conflict of laws rules, as well as gaps in the provisions of the applicable systems of law, with an expectation that one may ignore foreign homosexual marriages and registered partnerships. The author criticizes the amendment, shows the irrationality of the idea of purposeful creation of legal gaps. She also explains why a conflict of laws act should not introduce substantive definitions of certain juridical concepts. Further, she objects the idea of “recognition” or “non -recognition” of foreign marriages or registered partnerships on the conflict of laws level, which is contradictory to the long -established approach of determining an applicable law for particular social situations and relationships. While showing the fundamentals of the ordre public idea, she stresses the inadmissibility of creating strict bans on application of specific provisions of foreign law, which do not take into account their contents and the consequences of their application in a particular case.

Actio pauliana is an instrument of protecting of the creditors in the event of debtor’s fraudulent transfers of assets which render him unable to satisfy creditors. The question of the law applicable to actio pauliana has not been dealt with in Rome I nor in Rome II Regulation. There is no specific rule in the Polish new Act on Private International Law of 2011 either. At the same time, the particular features of this instrument — i.e. the fact that it is linked to contract, tortious liability, property law and enforcement of claims — make it difficult to be classified within the existing conflict of laws rules. In the doctrine and case there are many diverse proposals to solve this issue. The authors present seven different methods used in order to ascertain law applicable to actio pauliana. They are the following: the law applicable to protected claim, the law applicable to fraudulent transfer, tortious classification, the law of the state where transferred assets are located, the law of the state where the main interests of debtor are centred, the closest connection test and the cumulative or parallel application of two or more legislations. After examining the existing propositions, authors take a view that it is inevitable to differentiate between various elements of actio pauliana, and to subject them to either the law applicable to protected claim or to fraudulent transfer. It is nevertheless suggested that the law applicable to protected claim should play a leading role, although it may be necessary to allow for the intervention of the law applicable to fraudulent transfer, if this would be justified by the need to protect expectations of third parties.

The codification of Dutch private international law was performed in a way that was not generally admitted. The legislative process took more than three decades of legislative efforts. During preparative works it was decided, that Dutch PIL would contain only conflict of law rules, while procedural matters, including jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments, would be regulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. The step -by -step method, that had been chosen from the beginning of the law — making works, consisted of the preparation of separate bills that had been concentrated on the issues of limited scope, for example, separation and divorce or property law. Thus, conflict -of -law rules were diffused in a number of bills, not formally linked to each other. The process was ended by sketching the project of a bill that gathered rules of a general nature, that were developed by courts and legal doctrine. These rules were finally introduced to the act on Dutch private international law as its general part. General provisions of Dutch private international law are formulated in 17 articles. They contain, in particular, public policy clause, rules on personal status of natural persons, including legal position of aliens, on form of legal acts and on overriding mandatory rules of private international law.

This article presents an overview of Title 1 of Book 10 of the Dutch Civil Code, focusing on General Provisions in International Private Law. It covers key principles such as the application of international and community regulations, ex officio application of private international law rules, and the supremacy of Dutch law in procedural matters. The text also addresses preliminary questions, the exclusion of foreign private international law, and the public policy exception. Special attention is given to provisions concerning overriding mandatory provisions, the escape clause, and the recognition of foreign legal effects. Additionally, it details rules on party autonomy in choice of law, legal capacity, formal validity of legal acts, legal presumptions, burden of proof, and statutory limitations. Finally, the article outlines methods for determining applicable law in cases of multiple legal systems or statelessness.