1. An interlocutory appeal will lie against an order by the state court, as the court of first instance, denying a motion to challenge an arbitrator.

2. The issue of the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator goes to the essence of the arbitration proceeding as a non-judicial procedure for resolving private legal disputes.

3. Impartiality is a certain intellectual attitude, a psychological state of an objective judge (or arbitrator). In opposition to this, partiality is a characteristic connected with a real or apparent biased attitude of the decision-maker in favour of one of the parties or with respect to the issues in dispute.

4. It is asserted in the literature that “independence” refers only to issues arising out of a relationship between the judge (or arbitrator) and one of the parties. Independence means the lack of any relationship between the arbitrator and the parties to the dispute, in the past or during the course of the proceeding, that could affect the substance of the decision.

5. If the deadline indicated in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1176 passes without effect, the party obtains a right to apply to the state court (within two weeks) to recuse the arbitrator.

6. The proceeding before the state court is conducted on the basis of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus the issue of the permissibility of an interlocutory appeal against the order of the state court denying the motion to recuse the arbitrator should be considered on the basis of application of Civil Procedure Code Art. 394 §1 as relevant.

1. A joint and several debtor is not bound by an arbitration clause concluded by another joint and several debtor.

2. A partner of a registered partnership is not bound by an arbitration clause concluded by the partnership.

3. The acquirer of an enterprise (Civil Code Art. 55⁴) is bound by an arbitration clause concluded by the seller of the enterprise with its creditor prior to sale of the enterprise, covering disputes concerning obligations connected with conduct of the enterprise.

1. Final refusal to issue an order enforcing an arbitration award definitively eliminates the possibility of treating the award as equivalent to a state court judgment, and thus eliminates the result of the proceeding up to that point before the arbitration court.

2. Without doubt, the debtor has standing to file a petition to set aside an arbitration award. The creditor is deprived of such possibility, however. A party satisfied with the resolution may only commence a proceeding provided for in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1212 §2. In the situation of the creditor, the proceeding for recognition or enforcement of the award is the only procedure available to such entity for review of the propriety and legality of the determination by a domestic arbitration court.

3. The Civil Procedure Code provides for two forms of review of the rulings of the arbitration court. Alongside the proceeding for enforcement of the rbitration award is the petition to set aside the arbitration award. ... These are independent proceedings, based on independent grounds. ... From the point of view of the proceeding before the state court, the case is definitively ended only by the proceeding on the petition to set aside the arbitration award.

4. An order on recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award issued abroad—unlike an order on recognition or enforcement of a domestic arbitration award—is analogous to rulings issued in the main proceedings on the merits of the case.

5. A cassation appeal on recognition or enforcement of a domestic arbitration award is impermissible.

1. An arbitration court may rule on its own jurisdiction in a proceeding in which a claim has been filed (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1180 §1), including also in a separate order. In the regulations concerning procedure before the arbitration court, the Parliament did not provide a basis for issuance of an award dismissing a statement of claim commencing a proceeding before the arbitration court, including in a situation where the arbitration court finds that it has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It follows from these provisions that in instances indicated in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1190 §1, 1196 §1 and 1198, the arbitration court shall issue an order discontinuing the proceeding. It should thus be accepted that the arbitration court shall issue such an order also when, after beginning to receive evidence in the matter, it finds that the proceeding cannot continue because of the lack of an arbitration clause or the invalidity of such agreement. Conducting the proceeding and issuing an award then becomes impossible for a reason other than that stated in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1198 (1) and the beginning of (2).

2. The nature of a ruling issued by a court, including by an arbitration court, is decided by the substance of the ruling, and not the name or external form which the court gave to the ruling .... The ruling challenged by the claimant in the petition to set aside the arbitration award ... was not—contrary to the name used—an arbitration award, but in light of the nature of the determination made therein, an order.

3. An order discontinuing the proceedings before the arbitration court because of the lack of a valid arbitration clause, or an order dismissing the statement of claim for this reason, is a ruling ending the proceeding before the arbitration court, in which the court rules on its own lack of jurisdiction in the matter. While an order by the arbitration court in which the arbitration court denies a defence of the lack of the arbitration court’s jurisdiction may be challenged before the common court by either of the parties within two weeks (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1180 §3), the Parliament did not provide for the opportunity to challenge before the common court an order by the arbitration court in which the arbitration court rules that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter. Upon issuance of such ruling, a proceeding before the common courts is open to the parties interested in resolution of the dispute, and they may exercise their right of access to the courts in such proceeding.

4. A negative determination by the arbitration court as to its own jurisdiction in a matter is a final ruling and is not subject to review by the common court. A ruling by the arbitration court finding that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter may thus not be challenged by a petition to set aside an arbitration award as provided by Civil Procedure Code Art. 1205 ff.

1. It is clear that an arbitration clause may be binding also on legal successors with respect to the relationship under which disputes were submitted to the arbitration court for resolution, ... but an endorsee is generally protected by Art. 17 of the Promissory Note Law against defences by the promissory note debtors based on their personal relations with the prior holders of the note. This also includes protection against the defence that the promissory note dispute is subject to an arbitration clause. ... The promissory note debtor could assert against the endorsee the defence that the promissory note dispute is subject to an arbitration clause agreed with the prior holder of the promissory note only if the endorsee, in acquiring the promissory note, consciously acted to the injury of the debtor, i.e. knew of the existence of grounds for the debtor to assert the arbitration clause against the prior holder and also sought, to the injury of the debtor, to deprive the debtor of such defence. ... The promissory note debtor’s assertion against the acquirer of the promissory note, without any limitations, of the defence that the promissory note dispute is subject to an arbitration clause, could come into play only in instances where the promissory note was acquired by way of an assignment agreement or endorsement after protest for non-payment or after the deadline for protest, having the effect of an assignment (Promissory Note Law Art. 20(1), first sentence).

2. Although a clause submitting a promissory note dispute to an arbitration court is theoretically permissible under Civil Procedure Code Art. 1157, to do so must be regarded from the perspective of the promissory note creditor as highly irrational, as it deprives the promissory note creditor of the benefits afforded it by seeking payment of the promissory note in a proceeding for an order of payment before the common court. ... The position cannot be accepted ... that benefits comparable to those afforded to the party enforcing payment of a promissory note by a proceeding for order of payment may be assured in an arbitration proceeding by reference to the regulations concerning proceedings for order of payment within the parties’ agreement concerning “the rules and manner of proceeding before the arbitration court” (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1184 §1).

3. In light of the irrationality of submission of a promissory note dispute to an arbitration clause, it should be accepted that the effectiveness of such a clause requires an express reservation with respect to the given promissory note claim which in each instance does not raise any doubts. ... This rules out extending an arbitration clause included in the agreement underlying the issuance of the promissory note, with respect to disputes connected with such agreement, to a promissory note claim against the issuer.

1. The impermissibility of the common court’s hearing a case because of a binding arbitration clause (absent the grounds set forth in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1165 §2) also occurs when resolution of the matter presented for determination by the common court is not possible without resolving a dispute subject to the arbitration clause.

2. The principle of equality expressed in [Civil Procedure Code] Art. 1161 §2 requires ... that neither of the parties to a dispute to be decided by an arbitration court enjoy special rights in the proceeding before such court. This plainly applies to the manner in which arbitrators are selected. This is expressly stated in Art. 1169 §3, which provides that provisions of an agreement awarding one of the parties greater rights in appointment of the arbitration court shall be ineffective. This should be applied as relevant to a situation in which a provision of this type is contained in the rules of the permanent arbitration court selected by the parties.

1. In a petition to set aside an arbitration award, review of the merits of the case decided by the arbitration court is excluded.

2. Fundamental principles of the legal order should be understood to mean not only fundamental principles of the social and political system, reflected in constitutional principles, but also the overriding principles governing specific fields of law. … Examples that have been held to be violations of the fundamental principles of the legal order within the meaning of Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §2(2) include violation of the principle of the autonomy of civil-law entities and the principle of economic liberty, awarding damages where no injury has been suffered, or accepting the effectiveness of setoff under conditions in which specific regulations exclude such possibility.

1. A dispute concerning seeking a declaration of the non-existence of a legal relationship arising under an agreement because of the invalidity of the agreement may be submitted by the parties to an arbitration court for resolution (Civil Procedure Code Art. 1157).

2. The settleability of a dispute must be assessed in the abstract, apart from the concrete circumstances and legal conditions and considerations of whether a possible settlement that might be concluded by the parties would be permissible under Civil Procedure Code Art. 203 §4 in connection with Art. 223 §2, applying Civil Code Art. 917 in connection with Art. 58. … In an arbitration proceeding, the counterpart to review of the permissibility of a settlement under specific terms is the state court’s review via consideration ... of a petition [to set aside] the arbitration award or in a proceeding for recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award. ... There are no grounds for special treatment, from the point of view of the settleability of a dispute concerning a specific legal relationship, of the fact that the basis for the dispute is the defectiveness of the act creating, changing or extinguishing the legal relationship. What is relevant is not whether the issue of the defectiveness of the act, resulting in its invalidity, may be the subject of a settlement, but whether the legal relationship which the act concerns is subject to the disposition of the parties, and thus whether against the background of the relationship it is hypothetically possible to conclude a settlement.

1. A petition to set aside an arbitration award is an extraordinary means of review intended to set aside the award if at least one of the grounds exhaustively set forth in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 is justified.

2. When considering a petition [to set aside an arbitration award], the state court is bound by the grounds alleged by the petitioner. Only two of the grounds set forth in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §2 are considered on the court’s motion: the non-arbitrability if the dispute and inconsistency of the arbitration award with the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland.

3. The assessment of whether an arbitration award is contrary to fundamental principles of the legal order is addressed to the content of the award, and not the correctness of the procedure before the arbitration court or the composition of the panel. … An arbitration award may be set aside under the public policy clause if it is found that the results included in the content of the award are not consistent with a specific norm which is regarded as one of the fundamental principles of the legal order in force in Poland. ... These principles include not only constitutional norms, but also the overriding norms in specific fields of law.

4. The requirements made of persons serving as arbitrators should be combined with a party’s right to learn about any ties the arbitrator may have to entities appearing in the proceeding. It is up to the party to evaluate such circumstances as grounds for a decision to select an arbitrator or to seek removal of an arbitrator. The arbitrator’s self-assessment is irrelevant, because the essence of a fair procedure is tied to objective judgment by others. ... The fundamental principles of the legal order include the right to a court as provided in Art. 45(1) of the Polish Constitution, an element of which is a party’s right to have its case heard by an independent court, in a fairly conducted procedure.

1. The ability to submit a dispute to arbitration concerns specific legal relationships in the abstract sense, not the specific claims arising thereunder (for performance, for a declaration, or to establish a legal relationship or right), which are not the subject of the arbitration clause.

2. The condition for arbitrability is the abstract ability of the parties to dispose of rights arising under the legal relationship between then, not their ability to conclude a specific judicial settlement. It is thus not relevant ... whether the parties could by their own will bring about the non-existence or invalidity of the agreement between them ... or if they could, independently or through a judicial settlement, bring about the end of the dispute arising between them.