1. [I]n relation to commercial arbitration (…) the requirements of efficient arbitration proceedings justify the review of arbitral awards by the courts of the Member States being limited in scope, provided that the fundamental provisions of EU law can be examined in the course of that review and they can, if necessary, be the subject of a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling (…).

2. [I]t must be concluded that Article 26(2)(c) ECT must be interpreted as not being applicable to disputes between a Member State and an investor of another Member State concerning an investment made by the latter in the first Member State.

1. A petition to set aside an arbitration award is a legal remedy combining features of an extraordinary remedy at law, especially a petition for the revival of the proceedings, and an action for the formation of law or legal relationship in which the claimant (petitioner) demands a state court to render a judgment on setting aside of an existing legal relationship established by an arbitration award. A state court’s judgment granting the petition is of a quashing nature, as in such a situation the state court can only set aside the arbitration award, and only insofar as demanded by the petitioner.

2. [G]rounds for setting aside an arbitration award are provided for in Art. 1206 of the PCPC. It clearly follows from Art. 1206 of the PCPC that the list of the grounds for a petition to set aside an arbitration award contained therein is of an exhaustive character. Cognition of a state court in such a case is limited to examination whether the ground asserted in the petition, which may be one of the circumstances specified in Art. 1206 § 1 of the PCPC, exists. In addition, in the proceedings, a state court shall ex officio take into account the prerequisites set forth in Art. 1206 § 2 of the PCPC, irrespective of whether they were indicated in the petition or not.

3. The public policy clause covers both the procedural and the substantive fundamental principles of the legal order. Procedural public policy may be a ground for assessing an arbitration award in two aspects. First, the procedure which led to rendering of the arbitration award is assessed for its compliance with the fundamental principles of the legal order, second, the effects of the arbitration award are assessed from the perspective of their consistency with the procedural public policy, i.e. whether they are reconcilable with the system of procedural law. On the other hand, a violation by an arbitral tribunal of the substantive law applicable to the resolution of the legal relationship from which the dispute referred to arbitration arose, legitimates setting aside of the award only if it is connected with a violation of the fundamental principles of the legal order.

4. According to Art. 233 § 1 of the PCPC “The court shall assess the reliability and validity of evidence at its discretion, following extensive deliberations of the available material”. The boundaries of free assessment of evidence are determined by three factors: logical, statutory and ideological. The logical factor means that a court (an arbitral tribunal as well) is obliged to draw logically correct conclusions from the evidentiary material gathered in the case.

5. A reasoning of an arbitration award does not need to meet the same requirements as a reasoning of a state court ruling…, and an arbitral tribunal is not obliged to indicate in the reasoning of an arbitration award a precise interpretation of the relevant substantive provisions, in this case provisions regarding a contract for performance of a specific work, withdrawal from a contract, a contractual penalty.

1. Deprivation of a party of the right to defend itself shall be understood strictly. A party is deprived of the ability to defend its rights, if an arbitral tribunal fails to hear the party at all or gives this party no opportunity to provide explanations and statements with reference to the claims of the opposing party… .

2. It is possible… to proceed simultaneously before a state court and an arbitral tribunal. However, if two different rulings have been rendered in the case – one by the arbitral tribunal and one by the state court, this shall be a basis for setting aside of the arbitration award pursuant to Art. 1206 § 1 point 6 of the PCPC.

1. This notion (the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland – insertion added) is not unequivocal and is subject to interpretation. According to the well-established case-law of the Polish Supreme Court, it pertains to such violations of the provisions of substantive law that result in violation of the principles of the rule of law, and the award infringes the fundamental legal principles in force in the Republic of Poland and is in conflict with the legal order in force… .

2. [T]he fact that the Polish law excludes the possibility of stipulating contractual penalties for late performance of a pecuniary obligation does not per se make it incompatible with the Polish legal order to satisfy such a performance based on Latvian provisions of substantive law (the Civil Code) on the territory of Poland… .

1. [I]n case of doubts, one should always strive at maintaining the effectiveness of an arbitration agreement, which is hinted at by the lawmaker in Art. 1180 § 1 sentence 2 of the PCPC.

2. [T]he reasons of an arbitration award do not have to correspond to the requirements applicable to the reasons of a state court ruling, however, the content of the reasons needs to include the elements of the arbitral tribunal’s reasoning, which should indicate the correctness (soundness) of the award in the light of all materials (evidence) gathered in the case… .

3. [N]o reasons with respect to an award issued on the merits result in the award taking on the features of arbitrariness and discretion, which violates the fundamental principles of the rule of law… .

1. [B]y entering into an arbitration agreement, the parties consciously waived submission to the strictures of proceedings before a state court.

2. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to state that by concluding an arbitration agreement, the parties limit their constitutional and conventional right to court.

3. A party is deprived of the opportunity to defend its rights before an arbitral tribunal when the principle of equality of the parties has been violated, and one of the parties is not heard and does not have the opportunity to address the evidence and allegations presented by the opposing party. For these reasons, every instance in which an arbitral tribunal refuses to admit evidence sought by a party cannot be equated with that party being deprived of the right to a defense. This happens only when a party has no opportunity to present and argue for its position… .

4. [A] petition to set aside an arbitration award is not an appellate instrument, but a type of extraordinary judicial review by a state court over the activity of an arbitral tribunal. Thus in proceedings to set aside an arbitration award a state court cannot consider a dispute between the parties to the arbitration proceedings on the merits… .

1. Provisions regarding grounds of a petition to set aside an arbitration award (Art. 1206 § 1 and 2 of the PCPC) in proceedings initiated thereby constitute a basis for a substantive ruling on the merits of the case, which justifies treating them, in the context of the grounds for a cassation appeal, as a functional equivalent to substantive law provisions… .

2. [A]rbitrability of a dispute, which is one of the prerequisites of the effectiveness of an arbitration award, is subject to assessment by the court considering the petition to set aside an arbitration award, regardless of whether the petitioner has raised particular allegations in the arbitration proceedings or not, or has invoked particular allegations in the petition or not … .

3. Compliance with the requirements regarding the composition of an arbitral tribunal, including the correct appointment of arbitrators, may be … subject to assessment in the proceedings to set aside an arbitration award irrespective of whether an arbitral tribunal has decided on this matter previously.

4. Art. 1206 § 1 point 4 of the PCPC shall apply with regard to irregularities in the composition of an arbitral tribunal at all stages of the proceedings, including the stage of appointment of the arbitrators by the parties or a third party. This applies also to incorrect representation of these persons by appointment of the arbitrators.

5. Failure to comply with the requirements on composition of an arbitral tribunal constitutes a basis for setting aside an arbitration award regardless of its effect on the outcome of the case … .

6. Proceedings to set aside an arbitration award are proceedings separate from the prior arbitration proceedings and its aim is not to consider the dispute resolved by the arbitral tribunal on merits.

7. [S]pecific rules of representation of the defendant company in the proceedings regarding revocation or a declaration of invalidity of a shareholders’ resolution (art. 253 of the Commercial Companies Code) apply also in proceedings to set aside an arbitration award delivered in a dispute whose object is a claim for revocation or declaration of invalidity of a shareholders’ resolution.

8. The entity structure of the proceedings initiated by the petition to set aside the arbitration award, including the ability of the management board in corpore having special judicial capacity to act as a party is the same as in the prior arbitration proceedings, in which the arbitral tribunal ruled on potential defectiveness of a resolution, although procedural roles of the entities participating in the proceedings may change. A judgement delivered in the proceedings to set aside an arbitration award is decisive for the fact whether consideration on the merits of a resolution’s effectiveness remains in force, and indirectly, whether such consideration may acquire the same permanent legal force as a judgment of a state court (Art. 1212 § 1 of the PCPC). Therefore, the same risks regarding a conflict of interests on the side of the representatives of a company, which justify application of specific rules of representation in proceedings concerning revocation or declaration of invalidity of a shareholders’ resolution, are present in proceedings to set aside the award. In conjunction with a protective function of Art. 253 § 2 of the Commercial Companies Code, the aforementioned arguments are in favor of extending those specific rules to the proceedings to set aside an arbitration award, in which the arbitral tribunal ruled on a claim for declaration of invalidity or revocation of the shareholders’ resolution, regardless of the fact whether in such proceedings a company whose shareholders have adopted the resolution is the petitioner or the other party in the dispute.

9. The grounds of a petition to set aside an arbitration award are not of a disjunctive character; they may also be in a causal relation with respect to each other… .

10. One of the fundamental principles of arbitration is the principle of equal treatment of the parties (Art. 1183 of the PCPC). The principle is of a fundamental and axiological character in arbitration… . The principle concerns not only the equal treatment of the parties in the arbitration proceedings in the context of the right to be heard and the procedural means available to the parties, but also at the stage of formation of the arbitral tribunal. A violation thereof results, i.a. from the lack of the necessary equilibrium between the parties by appointment of the arbitrators, which may result not only from the wording of the arbitration agreement (Art. 1161 § 2 of the PCPC), but also from factual circumstances in which the appointment of arbitrators takes place.

1. [I]n proceedings initiated by a petition to set aside an arbitration award, a state tribunal is not authorized to examine whether an arbitral tribunal has correctly resolved the dispute in factual and legal terms… .

2. The provisions regarding the admissibility of a petition [to set aside an arbitration award – insertion added] shall be interpreted strictly and, in case of any doubts, it is preferable rather to uphold the award than to set it aside… .

1. In the course of proceedings initiated by a petition to set aside an arbitration award, the role of a state court is not to examine the compliance of the arbitration award with the substantive law applicable to the case. The task of the state court is only to examine whether in the case a statutory ground for setting aside of the arbitration award exists… . Control exercised over arbitration by a state court is not tantamount to resolution of a case ex novo, either on the factual or on the legal plane. The circumstances indicated in Art. 1206 § 1 of the PCPC are examined by the state court hearing the petition to set aside an arbitration award only if the petitioner relies on them, and the circumstances provided for in Art. 1206 § 2 of the PCPC are examined ex officio… .

2. An arbitration award shall be set aside under the public policy clause, if violation of the substantive law by the arbitral tribunal leads to consequences irreconcilable with the fundamental principles of the Polish legal system, that is, effects that are plainly and grossly contrary to such principles or to any one of them… .

3. [T]he principle of the autonomous will of the parties is one of the fundamental legal principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland… .

4. The public policy clause, like any general clause, is not precisely defined, which leaves great discretion to the court ruling on a specific case… . The application of the public policy clause remains in an inseparable relationship with the totality of circumstances of a particular case in close connection with the concrete factual state.

5. The public policy clause is… the only prerequisite for setting aside of an arbitration award enabling the state court to review the arbitration award on the merits. Nevertheless, on the basis of this clause, review of the constitutive elements of an arbitration award may not take on the dimensions proper for a review of the merits (correctness) of the award. The prohibition of a review of the merits of an award is related to the essence of the application of the public policy clause. By application of this clause, the point is not to determine whether the award is consistent with all relevant mandatorily applicable legal regulations, but only to determine whether the award effected a result contrary to the fundamental principles of the domestic legal order… . So only in the situation when the assessment made by the state court that the effects of the arbitration award are plainly and grossly contrary to the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland, it is possible to find a cassation appeal based on the allegation of violation of Art. 1206 § 2 point 2 of the PCPC to be well-founded.

6. [T]here is a great deal of autonomy in arbitration, which is entirely consistent with the intentions of the lawmaker, distinctly limiting the review capabilities of a state court. The fundamental objective of this regulation is to expedite the procedure for resolving civil disputes, and not to create an additional phase of pre-judicial procedure . Parties deciding to submit a dispute to arbitration must take these conditions into account, which also include scant external review of arbitration awards… .

7. It is not unreasonable to state that by concluding an arbitration agreement, parties limit their constitutional right to court (Art. 45 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland).

8. Deprivation of the right to defense shall be understood strictly. A party is deprived of the ability to defend its rights, if an arbitral tribunal gives this party no opportunity to provide explanations and statements with reference to the claims of the opposing party. If the arbitral tribunal ignores evidence offered by a party because it deems the evidence redundant, it shall not be considered that that party has been deprived of the right to defense. State court review as to whether the arbitral tribunal correctly found evidence to be redundant would constitute an impermissible intrusion into the merits of the case. If the arbitral tribunal disregards a certain portion of the defense submitted by a party, presenting in the reasoning of the award a substantive explanation of the reasons why it has considered the defense irrelevant, the allegation of a party that the arbitral tribunal has omitted its defense is in fact directed against the substantive defense of the dispute and is, as such, inadmissible… .

9. An arbitral tribunal, not being bound by the regulations on proceedings before a state court (Art. 1184 § 2 sentence 2 of the PCPC), has greater freedom to direct the course of the proceedings, including also – to decide on the relevance and purposefulness of examining specific evidence.

10. [T]he provision of Art. 387 § 2¹ of the PCPC, and all the more so of Art. 328 § 2 of the PCPC (cf. Art. 391 § 1 of the PCPC), according to Art. 1207 § 2 of the PCPC, apply only “as relevant” in proceedings before the state court hearing a petition to set aside an arbitration award. It means that the application of this provision must take into account the specificity of arbitration proceedings.

11. The state court hearing a petition to set aside an arbitration award shall not make factual findings, potentially, with the exception of those which are necessary to assess whether there are grounds for setting aside the arbitration award (for example, regarding the notice to a party on appointment of an arbitrator or on arbitration proceedings – Art. 1206 § 1 point 2 of the PCPC). As a consequence, the requirement of “indicating a factual basis” resulting from Art. 328 § 2 of the PCPC in connection with Art. 391 § 1 of the PCPC and Art. 387 § 2¹ of the PCPC cannot apply, as a matter of principle, to the reasoning of a judgment regarding a petition to set aside an arbitration award (Art. 1207 § 2 of the PCPC).

1. [T]he state court cannot, within the proceedings to set aside an arbitration award, settle a dispute on the merits between the parties to the arbitration proceedings… .

2. Only a violation of substantive legal norms, causing an arbitration award to result in a clear violation of the overriding principles of the legal order or in a conflict with particular principles of social coexistence may constitute a violation of the principles of the rule of law.

3. [R]eview of compliance of an arbitration award with the public policy clause is not of an appeal character and cannot replace it, because it would be contrary to the essence of arbitration, would render its existence aimless, and would be contrary to the autonomy of the will of the parties who have submitted their dispute to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, resigning from the jurisdiction of a state court.

4. Violation by an arbitral tribunal of substantive law provisions, i.e. an incorrect interpretation or misapplication thereof does not per se constitute a violation of the rule of law… .

5. It is impossible to draw from the assumption that the provisions on limitation of claims serve the purpose of certainty of the conduct of legal transactions and such a certainty is within the interest of the legal order in general, a conclusion that the set of rules governing limitation of claims constitutes, as a whole, a part of the fundamental principles of the legal order and any misinterpretation thereof leads to a contradiction with the ordre public clause.

6. Violation of a mandatorily binding provision is not … tantamount to a violation of the fundamental principles of the legal order… .

7. [I]n proceedings regarding an arbitration award, the state court is not authorized to make an assessment whether the claim has been time-barred, if this has been assessed by the arbitral tribunal.

8. [G]ross disregard of the principles of interpretation of declarations of will indicated in Art.  65 of the Polish Civil Code may constitute a basis for a petition to set aside an arbitration award, if the arbitral tribunal finds that the evidence relied on to prove the parties’ intention was irrelevant and conducts only an analysis of the wording of the contract, because materialization of the principle of the autonomy of the will of the parties is not possible without the application of the appropriate criteria of assessment of declarations of will made by the parties… . However, the review of the interpretation of declarations of will of the parties made by an arbitral tribunal, in case of properly conducted evidence proceedings, cannot be subject to review in the course of proceedings initiated by a petition to set aside an arbitration award.

9. The inability to abandon a comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case shall be understood primarily as an obligation to conduct arbitration proceedings in a way which enables the parties to submit all statements and evidence and – under the principle of their equal treatment – to respond to the statements and evidence submitted by the opposing party. The requirements for conducting evidence proceedings by an arbitral tribunal cannot be stricter than those applicable to a state court, all the more so that an arbitral tribunal does not dispose of coercive measures which are often necessary for effective examination of evidence. The audi alterem partem principle and the availability principle apply also in arbitration. An arbitral tribunal cannot take into account facts not indicated by the parties or apply the presumption of truthfulness of the claimant’s allegations in the event of the claimant’s failure to appear at the hearing, or deem undisputed facts to be true… .

10. [T]he matter of correct application of intertemporal norms per se does not constitute a violation of the public policy clause… .

11. [T]he mere issue of the interest rate cannot constitute a violation of the public policy clause.

12. [E]xamining evidence in the form of documents contained in the arbitration files is not a sine qua non condition of assessment of allegations raised in a petition to set aside an arbitration award… . The need to request such files shall be assessed in the circumstances of a particular case.

13. Hearing a petition to set aside an arbitration award, the state court does not have an obligation to conduct evidence proceedings ex officio… .