Piotr Nowaczyk, a partner at the SALANS law firm and a Polish Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris, talks with Beata Gołębiewska.

Every year, you present the facts and figures from the ICC International Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. You have recently been appointed President of the Court of Arbitration by the Polish Chamber of Commerce. How do you view things from this perspective?
ICC is the largest and best-known arbitration institution in the world. In 2005, it registered 521 new cases. Those requests concerned 1,422 parties from 117 different countries and independent territories. In 13.1 percent of cases at least one of the parties was a state, parastatal or public entity. The disputes concerned all sorts of business matters: commercial transactions, investments, new technologies and industrial property. 54.3 percent of new cases involved sums in excess of $1 million.

Polish firms were party to proceedings on 11 occasions, which is minor in comparison with the 86 French firms, for example. As for arbitrators, the 948 appointed came from 68 countries, including Costa Rica, Togo and Georgia for the first time, with Switzerland, the United States, Great Britain and France leading. Hearings were held in 50 countries worldwide, including newcomers Guatemala and Tanzania. The most frequently selected city was Paris, naturally, followed by London, Geneva, Zurich, New York and Singapore. Warsaw was selected three times as the venue of arbitration. Three arbitrations were carried out in Polish and 10 Polish lawyers served as arbitrators in the ICC proceedings.

Is arbitration popular in Poland?
Arbitration is gaining in popularity over here. We have a new Arbitration Act, based on the UNITRAL Model Law. The number of publications and dissertations on the subject is growing. Arbitration has now become fashionable in Poland, with Polish enterprises, both state-owned and private, preferring to arbitrate rather than litigate. The public courts are overloaded and foreign investors cannot afford to wait for years for the court's first decision. International practice requires international standards. Proceedings have been conducted in languages other than Polish at the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, and the list of arbitrators also features foreign attorneys. This is very much in keeping with other European countries.

The number of cases is impressive. With an average-over the last five years-of 513 requests for arbitration and 363 decisions rendered, we are close to ICC figures (521 and 325 respectively). This makes the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce one of the biggest arbitral institutions in Europe. Our statistics beat by several times over those presented by centers in Vienna, Stockholm and even London.

What are the pros and cons of arbitration?
Arbitration helps settle disputes discreetly, rather than decide on them. This leaves far greater latitude for an amicable solution or for an award in line with the principles of equity ex aequo et bono. A dispute may involve renowned firms that are mindful of their reputations and are connected by numerous business interests, of which perhaps only one might be in dispute. If they appeared in a common court, the parties would probably face each other at a public hearing, in a courtroom packed with journalists. In such circumstances, there is always the fear that business secrets might be disclosed. The competition could have a field day, and it is difficult to make concessions and to get on with doing business in such an atmosphere. Arbitration, on the other hand, enjoys a great deal of trust. Disputants seek neutrality.

A public court, irrespective of the country, is really a court for only one of the parties. Even if it is impeccably impartial, it shares the same cultural, historic, linguistic, and often religious background. The court may also share a common interest in the political system or stake in a military alliance with one of the parties. The other party may feel uncomfortable about this home team advantage, hence the popularity of arbitration.

Arbitrators are often talented mediators, who understand the ins and outs of the business world better than judges. The fact that disputes are heard only in the first instance is an advantage. This is an immediately obvious benefit for those of us who have been exposed to the manner in which common courts administer justice. Almost the whole world over, the judiciary is composed of two and frequently even three levels. At the same time, there are infinite possibilities for filing complaints against procedural decisions, for example, release from court costs. If one of the parties stalls for time, it may prevent a court from issuing a judgment for years. In arbitration, things proceed faster. On average, proceedings do not last longer than a year-a result unparalleled by courts anywhere in the world.