Polish Supreme Court judgment
dated 12 March 2002
Case No. IV CKN 844/00
Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:
Andrzej G. filed a petition to set aside an arbitration award for K.B.D. sp. z o.o. issued by a panel of arbitrators at the Gdańsk Regional Chamber of Legal Advisers. The grounds alleged for setting aside the award were failure to follow proper procedure by the arbitration court (because of failure to admit evidence from another case) and violation of the rule of law. The province court denied the petition and the appellate court denied the appeal. On cassation appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had failed to make an adequate showing of violation of the rule of law and denied the cassation appeal.
Excerpts from the text of the court’s ruling:
1. A proceeding before the state court pursuant to a petition to set aside an arbitration award is formal in nature, which is evident among other aspects from the limitation of the grounds for the petition (Civil Procedure Code Art. 712 §1) and the deadline for filing it (Civil Procedure Code Art. 713 §§1 and 2), and by the court’s being bound by the grounds for the petition for renewal, while it is permissible for the court to consider on its own motion whether the award violates the rule of law or principles of social coexistence (Civil Procedure Code Art. 714). In consequence, these regulations must be interpreted strictly.
2. A petition to set aside an award is a specific pleading in the nature of appellate review. It must meet the formal requirements of a pleading (Civil Procedure Code Art. 126) and provide the grounds and justification (Civil Procedure Code Art. 714 a contrario). The existence of any of the grounds may not be presumed. Action by the court consisting of interpretation of the grounds for the petition in order to ascribe grounds other than those expressly stated would usurp the role of the party to perform its procedural duties, and would also threaten arbitrary interpretation not necessarily consistent with the position taken by the petitioner. Thus it should be regarded as impermissible.
3. The concepts of the rule of law and principles of social coexistence are not the same. Lumping them into one normative category of general clauses does not mean it is permissible to apply them interchangeably and ascribe the same substance to the two concepts.