1. The issue of the consistency of the resolution by the arbitration court with the determined state of facts is beyond cassation review in connection with Civil Procedure Code Art. 3983 §3.
2. The arbitration court’s violation of the substantive law governing the case, which generally is connected with Civil Procedure Code Art. 1194 §1, is subject to review by the state court considering a petition to set aside an arbitration award only in terms of application of the public policy clause—at the court’s own initiative or on the basis of an allegation in the petition.
3. The circumstances separately listed in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1 as grounds for setting aside an arbitration award, proof of which lies primarily in the interests of the party, are excluded from the scope of application of the public policy clause.
4. The arbitration court’s conduct of the proceeding ignoring evidence offered by a party may justify an allegation of violation of Civil Procedure Code Art. 1183 if the evidence was necessary to the resolution of the case.
5. If the evidence raised by the party was ignored as a result of the arbitration court’s interpretation of substantive law, the mere fact that the interpretation may be regarded as erroneous cannot justify granting a petition to set aside the award unless the award also violates fundamental principles of the legal order.
6. The arbitration court’s application of regulations on the limitations period or preclusion may not be regarded as a violation of fundamental principles of the legal order even if this occurred on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the regulations.
Publication date: 15-05-2014 | Case no.: II CSK 557/13Key issues: arbitration procedure, petition to set aside arbitration award