In the interview, Professor Gołaczyński emphasises that both mediation and arbitration are considered as alternative dispute resolution methods. As such, they must be agreed upon between the parties beforehand. However, this is where the similarities essentially end.

See the full interview (it will take you approximately 7 minutes to watch).

Mediation is thus a method of dispute resolution where a third party helps the parties resolve the conflict. The role of the mediator here is to facilitate discussions and moderate them. The mediator should create conditions for the parties to improve communication, mutual understanding, and reach a consensus. If for some reason the parties do not reach a consensus, the mediation does not take effect, and the case, as if nothing had happened, goes to public court.

Arbitration, on the other hand, is a completely different institution. It does not involve persuading parties to resolve the conflict through talks and consensus. Its aim is to deliver a binding resolution of the dispute through the issuance of an award, which - according to Article 1212 of the Code of Civil Procedure - has the legal force of a court judgment once enforcement is granted. Arbitration is therefore a private court that, by agreement of the parties, replaces the state court.

What Prof. Gołaczyński said around the 5-minute mark of our interview is important. From the moment arbitration agreement is consented to, a party cannot later withdraw from arbitration or change their mind, unless with the consent of the other party. The arbitration agreement is treated here in the same manner as other essential contract provisions - such as those concerning the quantity of goods ordered or price.

The next parts of the interview with Prof. Dr. habil. Jacek Gołaczyński will be out soon. In them, we will discuss the possibilities of appealing an arbitration court's award and the clause proceedings that enable enforcement of the award.