An objection of lack of arbitrability does not have to do with non-justiciability, but refers to the jurisdiction of the court.

The fact that the procedure under provisions concerning arbitration courts does not contain an express provision on the costs of the dispute does not justify a finding that the arbitration court is not authorized to rule on the costs of the dispute. In any event, such provisions do not contain a prohibition in this respect, and [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code § 577, which provides that a private law claim may be submitted to an arbitration court for resolution, also includes the authority to rule on the costs of the dispute as an auxiliary element combined with the resolution itself.

§ 39 of the statute [of the Lwów Land Credit Association, as ratified by the Austrian government in an 1841 patent], specifying the jurisdiction of the state courts in certain disputes involving the association, refers only to disputes between the association and its members that are not submitted to arbitration pursuant to § 41.

In a petition referred to as an “invalidity petition”..., the petitioner asserted grounds for ineffectiveness of an arbitration award under [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code § 595(2), but did not seek to set aside the award but demanded statutorily impermissible amendment of the award on the merits. It follows that he did not assert at that time a petition to set aside the arbitration award (§ 596(1)), for which the code provides a period of three months from service of the arbitration award (§ 596(2)). … Thus if it was not until the hearing that the petitioner amended the relief sought and demanded that the award be set aside, it was only then, long after three months from service, that he asserted a proper petition to set aside the award. At that time he had already lost the right to assert the petition.

1. An arbitration court is not a state institution, but operates on the basis of an agreement by the parties ([former Russian] Civil Procedure Code Art. 1367), and thus the regulations on the official language, in force in state offices, do not apply there.

2. For an award written by the arbitration court in a foreign language, in order to obtain a writ of enforcement, which must be issued only in Polish, it is necessary to submit a duly certified translation, which will serve as the basis for the judicial actions connected with issuance of a writ of enforcement and enforcement of the award.

Establishment in a silent partnership agreement of the jurisdiction of the arbitration court for disputes arising out of this contractual relationship is irrelevant for disputes over the existence of such relationship.

1. A finding by the courts of two instances that an arbitration award is unenforceable is essentially a consequence of the judicially confirmed invalidity of the award, depriving it of force and effect.

2. The objective invalidity [of the arbitration award] could occur only if the scope of authority of the arbitration court was not specified at all or was extended generally, without closer description, to any and all disputes between the parties.

An arbitration provision in a collective agreement would have legal effect only when the agreement was signed by both parties (§ 884 of the [former Austrian] Civil Code), or by their attorneys-in-fact “specifically” authorized to conclude the agreement (§ 1008 of the [former Austrian] Civil Code).

This provision [former Civil Procedure Law Art. 1370¹] that consideration of claims referred to in Civil Procedure Law Art. 1370 shall lie with the court which would have jurisdiction in the event of a judicial dispute should be understood as reiterating the general rule with respect to jurisdiction of the court depending on the amount sought by the plaintiff.

1. Only the arbitration court, and not a party, is authorized to submit a demand for legal assistance.

2. With respect to the form of the award and evidentiary measures, the arbitration court is not bound by civil procedure regulations.