1. [A]n appeal against a court order concerning recognition of a foreign arbitration award is decided at a hearing in camera.
2. [A]n application concerning enforcement of a foreign arbitration award by granting of an enforcement clause, as well as an appeal against this order shall be decided by courts at hearings in camera (…).
3. [I]t shall be assumed that when Art. 1215 § 1 of the PCPC indicates the court which “rules after conducting a hearing”, this means, similarly as in the case of the preceding Art. 1214 § 1 of the PCPC, only the court of first instance. This conclusion is supported by the provisions of Art. 1158 § 1 of the PCPC.
4. In view of (…) the thesis that a party which entered into a dispute before a foreign arbitral tribunal cannot claim in the proceedings for enforcement of the award of this foreign arbitral tribunal that an arbitration agreement does not exist, it should be noted, above all, that the Court of second instance (…) has failed to apply this sanction to the participant of the proceedings. Nevertheless, it must be taken into consideration that the doctrine and case law (…) approve of such a position, although the New York Convention does not provide for the preclusion of a pleading of an arbitration agreement. In its reasoning it is emphasized that the essence of the New York Convention is to make the parties act in accordance with the principles of good faith and with the public decency, and thus the parties are prohibited from acting contrary to these principles. This interpretation makes it impossible to take disloyal actions against co-participants and the arbitral tribunal. However, it should be born in mind at all times that the presented view concerns preclusion of pleadings which the application’s opponent had failed to raise in the deliberative proceedings before the arbitral tribunal. If the pleading of non-existence or invalidity of an arbitration agreement was raised before a foreign arbitral tribunal, a party to the proceedings may still effectively invoke this pleading in the proceedings concerning enforcement of the arbitration award in Poland. This opportunity is not taken away, if the arbitral award has not been challenged before the courts of its origin, which is optional in the light of the New York Convention.
5. Although this does not follow directly from the wording of Art. V (1) letter a in fine of the New York Convention, this provision shall be applied not only if an arbitration agreement is concluded, but is invalid. This provision shall also be applied in the situation when there is no arbitration agreement (no arbitration agreement has been concluded).
6. [I]t is assumed that a ‘written form’ includes also documents exchanged by means of distance communication. Although the provisions of the New York Convention done in 1958 do not expressly indicate other forms of distance communication, a teleprinter, a telefax and forms of electronic communication, including e-mails, are treated in the doctrine equally to a telegram, if they result in automatic written record of the transmitted text. An electronic signature is not required to exchange electronic correspondence. It is permissible to conclude an arbitration agreement also in the ‘ordinary’ electronic form, which does not require an electronic signature verifiable by a valid qualified certificate (…).
7. It is impossible to conclude an arbitration agreement either tacitly or implicitly, as the written form is required.
8. An arbitration agreement is not a provision of an obligatory agreement, even if this agreement has the form of a clause in the ‘main’ contract, and therefore its effectiveness is considered autonomously.
9. [A]ssessment of the validity and efficiency of an authorisation to conclude an arbitration agreement shall be made autonomously, i.e. regardless of the assessment of existence of the entitlement of the attorney-in-fact to perform a legal act which is the source of the legal relation on the basis whereof disputes may be subjected to the competence of the arbitral tribunal.