OPINION' IN CASE NO Ó I2I1I- VILI- EUROPA Sp. z o. o. vs AXEL
BURDEN CASTLE
Svea whore, rdtt
Box 2z9o
ro1 17 Stockholm
Only by email to:
svea.avdz@dorn.se
Warsaw on zo September zoz3

OPINION IN CASE NO. Ó l:zl.gl.-zz
VILLA EUROPE Sp. z o. o. us AXEL BRAI.IDENBURG
Kleigaren's Endpoint
(Please note if the Swedish language has been used during the translation.)
With the letter from Mr. Brandenburg dated rB September 2c.23 (File Annex 9o)
which was received on September 19 zoz3, the kdrand has not yet had the opportunity to take
its endpoint.

1. From the content of the letter it appears that it has been designed
as a sharing of Mr Brandenburg's Views and observations towards the
court' Rather ón one professional analysis and a deposition from the
defendant's representative (the letter's introduction).

2. First of all, Mr. Brandenburg's free observations (confabulations) have
nothing did not have any relevance to the Swedish law on arbitration,
at least not sections 52-55. From this so-called lutgór they do not
and cannot make fórem&lfór non-consideration by the appellate court.

3. The defendant asserts that ''Appendix 78 is a pro forma invoice ie. not
an invoice which We]la Europe has to pay'' and is clearly misinformed
and shows a lack of p basic knowledge :

3.1. A proforma invoice is a formal and generally accepted legal
expression of the legally guaranteed freedom to conclude contracts in
Poland (Polish Constitution Article 31, 20 and 22 and Polish Civil Code
Article 353). The parties have established in writing (the proforma
invoice) a financial obligation that will be fulfilled within the
statutory time frame, no later than three years from the date of the
proforma invoice unless otherwise agreed.

3.2. Of course, instead of a proforma invoice or some other expression
of their will, the parties could have drawn up another written
agreement, let's call it a "Party Agreement," which sets out their
mutual obligations. But for reasons of saving time, the parties chose
to draw up an agreement with the name (possibly somewhat paradoxically)
pro forma invoice.

3.3. The proforma invoice, as an expression of will, is widely used when
its payment depends not only on the will of the parties according to
the information on the invoice, but also on a third party. In the case
of the invoice in Deed Exhibit 78, the parties listed on the pro forma
invoice agreed to pay for the service at a later time than the date the
obligation arose. The parties formally confirmed the existence of their
mutual obligation.

4. The defendant's claim that the company Villa Europa lacks an
identification number is completely incorrect and unfounded. The defendant
presents undefined (just as he did before without success) attachments
from unknown sources and draws unwarranted conclusions. The company Villa
Europa has had an identification number (NIP: 527-23-21-241) since 2000.

5. The claim of the defendant that he does not even notice that in the
second annex (the origin of which is unknown) erroneously called the "tax
register" (Exhibit 92) the NIP number 5272321241 is indicated (twice),
which is identical to Villa Europa's NIP (527- 23-21-241). The claim of
the plaintiff that there is no NIP and that it is not possible to issue
invoices is completely wrong and unfounded.

6. The claimant attaches two notarial deeds (one dated 20 March 2001
and one dated 29 March 2002) together with a translation of a small part
confirming that the claimant has a NIP number.

Summary: The defendant, as if the Swedish arbitration mode does
not existed and as if the New York Convention (1958) did not exist,
has repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to question the plaintiff's
credibility and actions. Attempts to question the plaintiff's integrity
and credibility have been repeated and dramatically ineffective and lack
evidence, or have even been fabricated.

The defendant has not even been able to show that any of the points
(52-55) of the Swedish Arbitration Act have been substantiated by him. On
the defendant's side was the burden of proof that:

  1. A foreign judgment will not be recognized and enforced in Sweden
  if it party to whom it is directed can demonstrate (in accordance with
  the provisions of Act 52-54),

  2. Search and enforcement of a foreign judgment will also be refused
  if the court finds it so (according to provision 55 of the Act). The
  respondent has not even been able to show, has not been able to prove
  that any of the clauses (52-55) of the Arbitration Act have been
  substantiated by him.

The plaintiff has proven his claim by presenting documents (with Apostille
or notarial act):

  1. An agreement between the parties, including an arbitration clause,
  2. The performance of the publication service for the benefit of
     the defendant,
  3. The receipt of the performance of the service by the defendant,
  4. The arbitrator's certificate of acceptance and a declaration of
     independence and impartiality,
  5. Effective written notices to the defendant about the arbitration,
     the right to judicial review and the right to defense;
  6. Decision of the arbitral tribunal.

"Pacta sunt servanta" is the principle that a person who has entered into
a valid contract must abide by it. The principle "pacta sunt servanda"
originally had application in civil law, but because of its crucial
importance and presence in almost every legal system it also constitutes a
fundamental principle of international law and constitutional law, where
it derives from the rule of law. It is one of the fundamental norms in
international relations, confirmed in many acts of public international
law, from the London Declaration of 17 January 1871 to the Covenant of the
League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations (Article 2.2) of 1945
and the Declaration on Fundamental Principles of International Law from
1970 (Principle 7). The principle is regulated in public international
law by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Articles 26 and 27).

We request that the recognition and determination of the enforceability
of the arbitral tribunal's decision, which we previously submitted in
our original submission to the Stockholm Court of Appeal, be granted.
We maintain our previous applications for the award of legal costs and
request that these be granted.

Warsaw day as above, ENG 2003-11-17
Prof. dr hab. KrzYsztof Sienicki
(CEO Villa EuroPa SP. z o. o')
Appendix: translation of excerpts from notarial acts (March 20, 2oo1 and z9