1. An award by an arbitration court which according to the arbitration agreement is to be established in Vienna and hold sessions there would not be enforceable in Poland.

2. The plaintiff may not be forced first to conduct a pointless dispute before a foreign arbitration court and only after that pursue the same dispute before the Polish court. The defence of lack of jurisdiction of the court is therefore not justified.

1. It cannot be assumed that the parties, when not only certain of their rights and obligations arising out of the legal act in question are challenged, but the legal act as such, did not intend to make use of the assistance of the arbitration court. Therefore, despite the invalidity (not to mention the ineffectiveness) of the deed itself, the arbitration clause, only mechanically connected to the deed, remains in force.

2. Unless otherwise provided by the parties, the arbitration court is not bound by procedural regulations, particularly the provisions of the [former German] Civil Procedure Code, when hearing the case submitted to it.

3. An arbitration award must set forth the reasons; that is, it must contain an objective justification for the operative wording of the award issued. Whether such justification is accurate, exhaustive or consistent with the state of facts cannot be reviewed by the common court under §1041 of the [former German] Civil Procedure Code, because it is not an appellate instance with respect to the arbitration court.

Because the jurisdiction of the arbitration court is justified by the written agreement of the parties submitting a dispute for it to resolve (§577 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code), the defendant incorrectly asserted the defence of the lack of jurisdiction of the state court because the dispute arising out of the agreement concluded with the debtor was submitted under such agreement to the resolution of the arbitration court. The arbitration agreement was not concluded by the plaintiff, and therefore such procedural defence may not be asserted against it. Because the plaintiff could not submit to the arbitration court the determination of the legal existence of the assigned receivables (§308(1) of the Execution Ordinance), under the position taken by the appellate court it would be deprived of its right entirely, before both the state court and the arbitration court. Moreover, such a view would provide an incentive to the debtor to submit disputes to arbitration, as in this manner it would be protected against claims by its creditors.

The law requires written form for the validity of an arbitration agreement because only a document enables a quick and clear determination that the agreement was made and identification of the dispute it refers to.

Only certification by a notary or justice of the peace of the signatures of all the persons taking part in the arbitration court—that is, the signature of the parties as well as the arbitrators—gives solemn form to the submission to arbitration, and, as follows from that, transforms such deed from an ordinary writing into a submission to arbitration, pursuant to the common maxim that the form gives being to the thing (forma dat esse rei). In other words, in cases where the parliament requires certain strict forms in performing an act, the act itself exists only if such forms are observed.

This type of clause [for arbitration in Paris], under the current law and from the point of view of the court and the legal rules that were in force when the agreement was concluded, is moot, because given the lack of a bilateral convention with France, an arbitration award issued in France would be unenforceable in Poland, as under the general rule of private international law no person may be deprived of the pursuit of its rights and claims.

No contract may be so far-reaching that as a result of the contract a party is deprived of rights reserved to it by the public order established within the state (Art. 6 of the [former Russian] Civil Procedure Code), and such rights include the right to apply to the courts for the purpose of realizing a subjective right to the fullest extent.

The institution of arbitration courts is by its nature founded on the special confidence of both parties in one another, namely that each of them will appoint as an arbitrator a person known for honesty and trustworthiness. Thus an arbitration agreement is binding only on the persons who concluded it, and beyond that perhaps only their heirs.

1. While the arbitration court is not bound in its procedure by civil procedure regulations ([former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code § 587), nonetheless the bounds of the task of the arbitration court must be designated (see [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code § 595(5)).

 2. In the absence of the defendant (in an arbitration court) the relief sought may not be amended and arbitrarily determined relief granted against the defendant without notice to the defendant. … Such procedure violates the mandatorily applicable rule of [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code § 587 of the necessity to hear out the parties or give them at least the opportunity of a defence, and renders the arbitration award ineffective ([former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code § 595 (2) and (5)).

In order for the court to permit execution, evidence must be presented to the court that an arbitration award constituting a writ of enforcement was issued by a properly appointed arbitration court, and such evidence is presented by the submission to arbitration, constituting in the given instance an integral part of the writ of enforcement.