THE COURT
Councilors of the Court of Appeal Ulrika Ihrfelt and Mattias Pleiner and former Court of Appeal assessor
Josefin Backman, referee

SPEAKER AND PROTOCOL KEEPER
Specialist rapporteur Lina Wogel

PARTIES
Applicant
Villa Europa Sp. zo. o., 016408763
ul. Sienna 64
00-820 Warsaw
Poland

Representative: Krzysztof Sienicki
Lipowa 1/Topolowa 19
05-807 Podkowa Lesna
Poland

Counterparty
Axel Brandenburg, 19590407-8317
Brevduvegatan 4 Lgh 1103
169 72 Solna

Agent: Attorneys Thomas Ekenberg and Michael Erici
Ekenberg & Andersson Advokatbyra Stockholm AB
Box 7500
103 92 Stockholm.

MATTER
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; now ask for rejection

Villa Europa Sp. zo. o. (Villa Europa) has applied for the recognition and
enforcement of an arbitral award to be delivered by the Pan-European Court
of Arbitration on July 9, 2022 in Warsaw, Poland.

Axel Brandenburg has contested the application.

The parties have requested compensation for legal costs.

Axel Brandenburg has argued that there are reasons for the Court of Appeal to
oblige Krzysztof Sienicki, together with Villa Europa, to compensate Axel
Brandenburg for his legal costs in accordance with ch. 18. Sections 6 and 7
of the Code of Procedure.

Krzysztof Sienicki has denied that there are such reasons.

A question has arisen as to whether Villa Europa's application should
be rejected.

After presentation, the Court of Appeal considers the following

DECISION (to be announced 2024-02-15)

1. The Court of Appeal rejects that of Villa Europa Sp. zo. o. submitted application.

2. Villa Europa Sp. zo. o. shall reimburse Axel Brandenburg's legal
costs with SEK 230,000 plus interest on the amount according to article 6,
with interest rates from the date of this decision until payment is
made. The amount refers to attorney's fees.

The reasons for the decision

Legal starting points

Section 53 of the Arbitration Act (1999:116) states that a foreign
arbitration award based on an arbitration agreement must be recognized
and enforced in Sweden, unless otherwise provided for in article 54-60.

That it is a question of such a judgment as referred to in Section 53
of the Arbitration Act is a necessary procedural requirement in cases
of recognition and enforcement. The court must there ex officio examine
whether it is a question of a (foreign) arbitration award. It is up to
the applicant to demonstrate that this is the case. (See NJA 2017 p. 198
p. 11 and 14.)

The question of wheather it is a judgement according to Section 53 of
the Arbitration Act must in principle be settled according to the legal
order that applies to the arbitration award or would have applied to it,
if it had been an arbitration award. It is up to the Court of Appeal
to try to find out the content of the applicable legal order. If the
legal order cannot be determined or its content cannot be clarified,
the question may be examined based on Swedish law, however, taking into
account what may have been expressed in various foreign legal sources.
If an internationally accepted opinion exists, it should be followed, as
long as it harmonizes reasonably well with the Swedish legal system.
(See NJA 2017 p. 198 p. 12.)

Thus, the question of whether this case is an arbitral award must be
decided in the first place in accordance with Polish law, since the filed
document purports to be an arbitral award delivered in Warsaw. Poland
has ratified the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention). Court of Appeal. therefore
assumes that internationally accepted principles regarding the application
of the convention are part of Polish law.

The concept of arbitration is not defined in the New York Convention.
In foreign practice, however, what could be called fabricated
arbitrations, i.e. documents that look like real arbitrations but
that have come about through a sham procedure, are considered not to
constitute real arbitrations in the sense of the New York Convention. A
fabricated arbitration award entered into with a fraudulent purpose is
therefore not to be considered an arbitration award at all. (See Born,
International Commercial Arbitration, 3rd ed., 2021, pp. 3165 f., and pp.
3185 f. with references.)

The legal status of the act invoked

The investigation

Villa Europa has relied on a certified copy
of the document allegedly constituting an arbitration award, drawn up
in Polish, and a translation of the document into Swedish. Furthermore,
the company has submitted a certified copy of the parties' agreement
with arbitration clause.

Axel Brandenburg has claimed that the act invoked by Villa Europa. is not
a true arbitration. In support of this objection, Axel Brandenburg has
essentially stated that Villa Europa set up its own arbitration court
where the company tried its own claim against him, and then applied
for enforcement of the alleged arbitration award. Axel Brandenburg has
further stated that this action constitutes an elaborate fraud attempt
on the part of Villa Europa.

Axel Brandenburg has submitted an extensive investigation in support of
the fact that it is not a question of a real arbitration. The evidence
mainly focuses on the circumstances surrounding the Pan- European Court of
Arbitration in Warsaw and the institute's relationship with Villa Europa,
the parties' arbitration agreement and the circumstances surrounding
Villa Europa's underlying payment claim against Axel Brandenburg, as
well as the design and content of the arbitration award.

The Pan-European Court of Arbitration and its relation to Villa Europa.

The Court of Appeal notes that it is undisputed between the parties
that it was Villa Europa that registered the arbitration institute's
website. The company has explained this by saying that the development
and registration of websites is part of its business.

According to the investigation submitted by Axel Brandenburg, the website
was registered on September 28, 2021. The Court of Appeal notes that the
website was thus only registered after the parties had entered into the
agreement that Villa Europa believes was the basis for the arbitration
board's jurisdiction.

Axel Brandenburg has submitted photographs from the address given in the
application to the Pan-European Court of Arbitration in Warsaw. From
these it appears that neither on the facade of the property nor in
the mail is there anything to indicate that an arbitration court would
have any activity there. Villa Europa has explained this by saying that
it is forbidden to place signs or other information on the facade of
the building, taking into account the historical value in the center
of Warsaw.  It has also emerged that the arbitral tribunal later changed
its address to a post office box in Ukraine, but not whether it has an
office and, if so, where it is located.

In light of the circumstances reported above, the Court of Appeal
finds that there is reason to doubt whether the Pan-European Court of
Arbitration exists at all.

The parties' arbitration agreement

In its application to the Court of Appeal, Villa Europa stated that the
arbitration was invoked by the company in accordance with an arbitration
clause in an agreement dated June 26, 2020. However, in the invoked
arbitration judgment, reference was made to an arbitration agreement
from April 24, 2020.

After Axel Brandenburg denied during the processing of the case that he
would have signed an arbitration agreement on one of these days, Villa
Europa has changed the information about the date of the conclusion of
the arbitration agreement. Villa Europa has then relied on an agreement
signed by Axel Brandenburg on 30 September 2020 and by Villa Europa on 10
October 2020. In connection with this, Villa Europa has also submitted a
supplementary one. decision from the arbitration court in which the date
for the signing of the arbitration agreement was changed from April 24,
2020 to October 10, 2020. The supplementary decision is dated the same
day as the judgment.

Axel Brandenburg has claimed that the arbitration agreement invoked by
Villa Europa is an afterthought. He has submitted two other agreements
which he believes Villa Europa previously sent to him when the company
made payment demands against him. These must have been signed by him on
13 May 2020 and 30 September 2020, respectively. The agreements have a
partially different content, among other things in terms of conditions
for how disputes are to be resolved. In response to this information,
Villa Europa has stated that Axel Brandenburg signed two different
agreements on September 30, 2020. The first of these two agreements did
not give the European Court of Arbitration jurisdiction to hear disputes
between the parties, but the agreement Axel Brandenburg signed later
that day did. . The Court of Appeal notes that in the agreement that
Villa Europa invoked in support of its application, Axel Brandenburg's
signature is found only on the last page of the agreement, while Villa
Europa has signed all pages, including the page where the arbitration
clause referring to the Pan-European Court of Arbitration is found. These
conditions are compatible with Axel Brandenburg's claim that the agreement
invoked by Villa Europa has been manipulated after the fact.

Villa Europa's underlying payment requirements

Villa Europa's claim means that the parties entered into an agreement
which entails a payment obligation for Axel Brandenburg of approximately
12,900 euros because, several months earlier, he gave a lecture at an
academic webinar arranged by Villa Europa and that Villa Europa recorded
the lecture, edited the recording and published it on Youtube. The
Court of Appeal finds it unlikely that a researcher would enter into an
agreement on those terms. It has also emerged that similar demands have
been made by Villa Europa against around thirty researchers in Europe
and that at least several of these have contested the demands with the
same objections as Axel Brandenburg.

The design and content of the arbitration award

The Court of Appeal notes that point 2 of the arbitration award
stipulates a payment obligation for a person other than Axel
Brandenburg and that that person was apparently not a party to the
alleged arbitration. Furthermore, the wording of several of the points
in the judgment is unclear as regards the more detailed meaning of the
obligation.  Even otherwise, the arbitration award gives the impression
of having been written by a person who does not have the competence that
an arbitrator can be expected to have. The Court of Appeal considers
that the invoked arbitration award. design and content give reason to
question whether it is the result of a real arbitration.

The Court of Appeal's summary assessment

As previously established, it is Villa Europa that must demonstrate
that its application relates to an arbitration within the meaning of
the Arbitration Act.  Through the investigation in the case, remarkable
and troubling circumstances have emerged for which Villa Europa has
not provided any reasonable explanations. In these circumstances, the
Court of Appeal considers that Villa Europa has not shown that it is
an arbitration award within the meaning of the Arbitration Act. Villa
Europa's application must therefore be rejected.

Legal costs

As Villa Europa's application is to be rejected, the company must
reimburse Axel Brandenburg for his legal costs. Axel Brandenburg has
claimed compensation of SEK 382,000. The amount refers to attorney's
fees and corresponds to 95.5 hours of work according to submitted cost
accounts. Villa Europa has not accepted any amount as reasonable in
and of itself.

The Court of Appeal notes at the outset that the case has been going
on for a long time and that the correspondence and the investigation
have become relatively extensive. This case is one of three cases in
the Court of Appeal where Villa Europa applied for the recognition and
enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. Axel Brandenburg's counsel
is also counsel in one of the other cases. The circumstances and the
investigation have been largely the same in that case as in the present
case. Axel Brandenburg, after the Court of Appeal informed him that
there was no need for further correspondence in the case, submitted
several statements without having been submitted to them. Against this
background, the Court of Appeal decides that Axel Brandenburg shall be
reimbursed for his legal costs with a reasonably considered SEK 230,000
in respect of attorney's fees.

Axel Brandenburg has stated that due to what he brought forward about
Villa Europa and Krzysztof Sienicki, as well as what he showed regarding
the documents, agreements and the alleged arbitration referred to by
Villa Europa, there are reasons to oblige Krzysztof Sienicki, together
with Villa Europa, to reimburse Axel Brandenburg's legal costs in brand
total drwxr -rw- in accordance with ch. 18 Sections 6 and 7 of the Code
of Procedure.

The Court of Appeal has found that Villa Europa has not shown that it is
an arbitration award within the meaning of the Arbitration Act. However,
this does not mean that it has been shown that Villa Europa has made
claims that the company has realized are unfounded or that there has
otherwise been such action that constitutes a prerequisite for the
imposition of joint and several payment obligations.

HOW TO APPEAL, see Appendix A
Appeal no later than 14-03-2024
A trial permit is not required.

Lina Wogel
The protocol presented