1. Review of an arbitration award by the state court cannot turn into a full consideration of the merits of the dispute submitted to arbitration for resolution. Nonetheless, the obligation to examine whether the challenged award violates fundamental principles of the legal order usually cannot be conducted properly without the state court’s reference to the case file. Sticking only to the wording of the arbitration award itself would render such review illusory.
2. Unlike the state court, the arbitration court is not bound to apply the law strictly, even if the parties have not authorized it to resolve the dispute under principles of equity. The only limitation on the arbitration court in this respect is the fundamental principles of the legal order (for example the principle of the compensatory nature of liability in damages and the principle of protection of property rights). Not every violation of substantive law by an arbitration court, nor every erroneous interpretation or improper application or failure to apply a legal norm may be held to be a violation of fundamental principles of the legal order.
3. The rule expressed in Civil Code Art. 379 §1 of the separateness of performance is not one of the rules whose violation would conflict with the foundations of the legal order of the Republic of Poland. It suffices to point out that the parties to the agreement may exclude this rule by providing for solidarity among the creditors (Civil Code Art. 369 in connection with Art. 367 §1).
4. An objection of the lack of jurisdiction of the arbitration court is subject to preclusion if it is not asserted within the time indicated in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1180 §2. In that case, a petition to set aside the arbitration award can no longer effectively rely on the basis set forth in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1(1). In the event of assertion of the objection of lack of jurisdiction, the arbitration court may rule on its own jurisdiction in a separate order, but that is left to its discretion. If the arbitration court is convinced of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, it may also consider the case on the merits without first issuing an order concerning the asserted objections to its jurisdiction. In the latter case, it is obvious that a party may base its petition to set aside the arbitration award on the allegation of violation of Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1(1), because it did not previously have any possibility of presenting this objection to the state court for its review. It is different in the case of issuance by the arbitration court of an order overruling the objection of its lack of jurisdiction. Then the parties may seek a ruling by the state court within 14 days after service of the order on them. The judicial proceedings in this respect are at two instances (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1180 §3).
5. A party which has exhausted the procedure specified in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1180 §3 cannot later, in a petition to set aside the award, again assert the objection of the absence of an arbitration agreement or its invalidity or ineffectiveness. This conclusion may be drawn from Civil Procedure Code Art. 365 §1 in connection with Art. 1207 §2 or in connection with Art. 13 §2. … Referring the order of the arbitration court to the court of first instance, and then the party’s failure to file an interlocutory appeal against an order against it, also closes the path to reassertion of the objection of the lack of jurisdiction of the arbitration court on the grounds indicated in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1(1). There are no grounds for distinguishing the litigation stance of a party which exhausted the recourse to both instances and a party which did not file an interlocutory appeal against the order of the court of first instance, and in consequence the order obtained finality. In both cases the legally final orders are binding on the parties and the courts pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Art. 365 §1.
6. A party that sought a ruling on jurisdiction pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Art. 1180 §3 and obtained an unfavourable order from the state court cannot assert the same objections under Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1(1), regardless of whether the state court ruled at one or both instances.
7. The law essentially equalizes—in terms of legal consequences—the failure to assert the objection of lack of jurisdiction of the arbitration court within the time indicated in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1180 §2 with the respondent’s inclination (consent) to consideration of the case by the arbitration court. An interpretation accepting the preclusion specified in Art. 1180 §2 but at the same time permitting non-recourse to the procedure for judicial review set forth in Art. 1180 §3 and accepting the possibility of not disputing the jurisdictional order of the arbitration court until the petition to set aside the award would be an inconsistent interpretation and largely eliminate the benefits for both parties to the arbitration proceeding flowing from the 2005 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code.
8. In its review, the state court cannot re-evaluate the evidence to determine whether it would have made the same factual findings as those presented in the arbitration award under review. Disputing the arbitration award in this respect would be possibly only if the defects founds were so fundamental that they would qualify as a violation of fundamental principles of civil procedure. Evaluation of the award in terms of the fundamental principles of substantive law must not be turned into appellate review.