1. [V]iolation of the fundamental principles of the Polish legal system may occur in the realm of both substantive and procedural law, which leads to a distinction between the substantive legal system and the procedural legal system. The fundamental principles of the Polish legal system should be understood to mean constitutional principles as well as the prime principles applicable in other fields of substantive and procedural law; the latter undoubtedly include the principle of the equality of the parties… .

2. A failure to admit and consider evidence offered by a party does not constitute deprivation of that party of a defense, if the arbitral tribunal duly justifies that procedural decision in accordance with the accepted rules… .

3. The essence of a petition to set aside an arbitration award is to provide a review mechanism respecting, on one hand, the separateness and autonomy of arbitration, and on the other hand, preventing the functioning in legal circulation of rulings by non-state courts violating the rule of law. Proceedings to set aside an arbitration award do not lead to reconsideration of the merits of the dispute between the parties, but are intended only to verify the petitioner’s allegations of the existence of the grounds raised in the petition provided for in Art. 1206 § 1 of the PCPC and assess whether any of the grounds provided for in Art. 1206 § 2 of the PCPC exist, whether or not asserted by the petitioner… .

4. [A]n arbitration agreement, arbitration rules of a permanent court of arbitration or otherwise adopted rules of procedure cannot violate Art. 1197 [of the PCPC – insertion added]. An arbitration award may contain elements not indicated in the provision – first and foremost, a ruling on the costs of the proceedings.

5. The written form of an [arbitration – insertion added] award is obligatory. An arbitration award shall, as a matter of principle, be signed by all the arbitrators, including arbitrators voting against the majority position. However, in the event of granting an award in the composition of at least 3 arbitrators, signatures of the majority of the arbitrators with indication why there are no signatures of the remaining arbitrators, are sufficient. It is accepted in the doctrine that an award acquires legal force when it is signed.

6. Article 1197 § 2 [of the PCPC – insertion added] stipulates that an arbitration award shall state the reasons for the ruling. Indication of the reasons for a ruling, on which an arbitral tribunal has based the award, does not have to comply with the requirements for the proceedings before a state court. In particular, an arbitral tribunal is not obliged to indicate the legal basis of its ruling. However, it shall result out of the reasoning on what facts an arbitral tribunal has based its ruling and which circumstances have been found by the arbitral tribunal to be significant to resolve a dispute.

7. Article 1197 [of the PCPC – insertion added] does not require an arbitration award to contain a ruling regarding the demands of the parties. This, however, is obvious.

1. [I]f a party to a dispute in proceedings before a foreign arbitral tribunal did not contest the jurisdiction thereof and began substantial defense, such a party cannot efficiently rely on non-existence… of the arbitration agreement in the proceedings relating to recognition of the arbitration award.

2. [T]he essence of the New York Convention is the requirement for the parties to proceed in accordance with the principles of good faith and fair practice, and thus a prohibition of acting contrary to these principles.

3. [T]he wording of Art. II (2) of the New York Convention calls for a liberal understanding of the concept of an “agreement in writing” as the requirement for effectiveness of an arbitration agreement and requires an acceptance that the parties have freedom with respect to selection of the form of the agreement in which they submit to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal. It is thus possible to conclude such an agreement using means of reaching agreement at a distance, e.g. by an exchange of faxes or statements by email.

4. Referring to the issue of existence of grounds for refusal to enforce a foreign arbitration award, it should be noted, in accordance with the position presented in the doctrine, that provisions of the Polish Civil Procedure Code, including Art. 1215 thereof, may in practice apply only towards states which are not parties to the New York Convention of 1958.

5. With reference to the public policy clause (Art. V (1) letter b of the Convention (the New York Convention – insertion added))… the views of the doctrine regarding the fundamental principles of the legal order referred to in Art. 1214 § 3 point 2 of the PCPC shall apply. These are therefore the principles arising out of the Constitution and the principles governing particular fields of law, a violation whereof is incompatible with the very concept of a specific legal institution in Poland, not just with particular provisions regulating the same institution in the country of origin of the arbitration award, but also in Poland, as the state of enforcement of this award, which results in the conclusion that in the proceedings concerning recognition of the arbitration award, its substantive review is not allowed… .

[The Purchaser] is not (…) bound by the arbitration agreement made in the lease agreement (…).

1. [T]he concept of an ‘agreement in writing’, whereunder parties undertake to refer a dispute to arbitration, has been explained as meaning both an arbitration clause contained in a contract (i.e. relating to disputes which may arise in the future) as well as a compromise, i.e. an agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration concluded after a dispute has arisen.

2. [D]evelopment of means of distance communication results in acceptance of the viewpoint that the intent of Art. II (2) sentence 2 of the New York Convention is fulfilled also if a declaration of will is made by new technical methods, including an exchange of e-mails or faxes. In any of these situations, however, two requirements need to be fulfilled. Firstly, since we are dealing with a contract, it is necessary for each of the parties to clearly express its will to refer the dispute to arbitration, which is tantamount to acceptance of exclusion of a case from jurisdiction of a state court. Secondly, mutual acceptance of the idea to refer a dispute to arbitration is not sufficient. It is necessary for the parties to make a declaration of will in a way that fulfils the requirement of written form within the meaning of Art. II (2) sentence 2 of the New York Convention.  

3. To conclude an ‘agreement in writing’ within the meaning of Art. II of the New York Convention it would be also necessary in the situation at hand to make another declaration, whose content would express the will of the contractor agreeing to having a case recognized by an arbitration court. Only then it could be possible to say that was ‘an exchange of letters or telegrams’ (also faxes, e-mails, etc.) within the meaning of Art. II (2) sentence 2 of the New York Convention, understood as documents referring or corresponding to each other and containing consistent declarations of will of the parties to refer a dispute to arbitration. This criterion is not fulfilled, if the parties correspond with each other about matters related to the contract, but from the content of this correspondence it does not follow that an ‘exchange’ took place within the meaning of Art. II (2) sentence 2 of the New York Convention, so an ‘exchange’ of declarations concerning establishment of jurisdiction of an arbitration court.

4. [C]onclusion of an ‘agreement in writing’ or making an arbitration agreement is always a subject to assessment by an arbitration tribunal or a state court which decides on its jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction to hear the case.

5. Effective reliance on the grounds for application of Art. 1162 § 2 sentence 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code is (…) possible only if a contract is concluded with respect to which a dispute may arise, i.e. the so-called main contract (…). 

6. [T]o effectively rely on existence of an arbitration clause, it is not sufficient for the contractor  to challenge the conclusion of the main contract (for example, a sales contract) in which reference is made to the arbitration agreement contained in another document. The issue of existence of the arbitration agreement always requires a separate assessment and a decision on the validity and effectiveness of the arbitration clause.

7. Competence of an arbitration tribunal to settle a dispute results from the will of the parties. This will should be (in legal categories, i.e. terms of assignability  of the declaration) unquestionable (…).

1. The Court of Appeal shall rule on the enforcement of an arbitration award using provisions on appeal (Art. 1213¹ of the Polish Civil Procedure Code) and an order of the court of the second instance on enforcement of an arbitral award issued abroad shall be subject to a cassation appeal (Art. 1215 § 3 of the PCPC).

2. An application for declaration of enforceability in the form of granting of an enforcement clause to an arbitration award may be filed by a legal successor of a beneficiary of the arbitration award, if the beneficiary for the first time launches the procedure of incorporation of such an award to the domestic legal order (…). Jurisdiction of the court ruling in such a case is extended to include examination of the prerequisites from Art. 1214 § 3 and 1215 § 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code and legal succession (Art. 788 of the PCPC).

3. Article 788 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code applies to both court and out-of-court executive titles, including an arbitration awards which, after being declared enforceable by a court, have the same legal validity as a state court judgment (Art. 1212 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code).

4. [A]rbitration awards can be declared enforceable only one time.

5. Arbitration award is not an executive title (Art. 777 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code (…)). When a court declares it enforceable, such an award has the same legal validity as a court judgment (Art. 1212 § 1 of the PCPC) and becomes a writ of enforcement (Art. 1214 § 2 of the PCPC). An arbitration award which has been declared enforceable shall have such binding power as court judgments in force (Art. 365 of the PCPC) and shall have the force of res iudicata (Art. 366 of the PCPC). Such a writ of enforcement may be granted an enforcement clause as a result of a transfer of rights (Art. 788 of the PCPC) provided that the applicant is a legal successor of the person who obtained the writ of enforcement and the applicant proves legal succession with an official document or with a private document with an officially certified signature.

6. Neither legitimacy of a claim nor an obligation of a debtor resulting from an execution title to provide is not examined in the proceedings concerning enforcement of a foreign arbitration award (…).

1. [T]he reasons for refusal of recognition or enforcement of a foreign arbitration award, referred to in Art. V (1) of the New York Convention, are taken into account only upon request of a party seeking refusal of recognition or enforcement of an award. This follows expressly from the wording of the New York Convention (…).

2. [I]t is impossible to assume that a simple reference to the circumstances referred to in Art. V (1) of the New York Convention, considered only at the request of a party could be decisive for recognition or enforcement of an award being in contradiction to the public policy clause, i.e. the circumstance considered ex officio in the light of Art. V (2) letter b of the New York Convention.   

3. All persons who participated in the foreign proceedings as a party or as a participant take part in the proceedings for recognition of a foreign arbitration award, and an exception to this rule can be only accepted when an application for recognition of a foreign award concerns a part of the award which does not apply to all parties or participants. Despite a change of the provisions regulating recognition of foreign arbitration awards, it needs to be considered that the stance of the Polish Supreme Court presented in the aforementioned ruling [I CSK 330/06] remains valid.

Although one cannot exclude the admissibility of modification of the Rules of Arbitration by the parties, it needs to be assumed that in this respect the claimant and the respondent have not made any modifications. It cannot be assumed that such modifications resulted from the fact that the sole arbitrator preferred – by issuing procedural orders – the use of opinions of private experts appointed by each of the parties, since these orders could not modify the Rules of Arbitration and none of the parties understood them that way (…).

1. According to Art. 1212 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code an arbitral award or a settlement made before an arbitral tribunal shall have legal effect equal to a court judgment or a settlement made before a court, upon recognition or enforcement thereof by the court. Confirmation of the enforceability of an arbitral award or settlement made before an arbitral tribunal which is capable of enforcement by way of execution, is made by the proceedings regarding obtaining an enforcement clause for it (Art. 1214 § 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code).

2. In the course of the proceedings for recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award, the appellate court does not examine the merits of the claim established by the award, but limits itself solely to finding whether there are no negative prerequisites for recognition or enforcement of an award in the case. Art. 1214 § 3 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code enumerates 3 negative prerequisites justifying refusal to recognize or enforce an arbitration award.

1. [I]f a participant of legal proceedings before a foreign arbitral tribunal did not contest the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and did undertake substantive defense, such a participant is not able to successfully seek non-existence or invalidity of the arbitration agreement in the proceedings concerning recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award… .

2. [T]he wording of Art. II of the New York Convention calls for a liberal understanding of the concept of an “agreement in writing”, as the requirement for effectiveness of an arbitration clause, and requires an acceptance that the parties have freedom with respect to selection of the form of the agreement in which they submit to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal. It is thus possible to conclude such an agreement also using means of reaching agreement at a distance, for example by an exchange of faxes or statements by email.

3. With reference to the public policy clause (Art. V (1) (b) of the New York Convention), the Polish Supreme Court in its case law explained that the views of the doctrine regarding the fundamental principles of the legal order referred to in Art. 1214 § 3 point 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code shall apply. In other words, these are the principles arising out of the Constitution and the principles governing particular fields of law, a violation of which is incompatible with the very concept of a specific legal institution in Poland, not just with particular provisions regulating the same institution in the country of origin of the arbitration award and in Poland, as the state of execution of the award, which results in the conclusion that in proceedings concerning enforcement of an arbitration award, its substantive review is not allowed… .

1. By entering into an arbitration agreement, the parties revoke the competence of state courts to adjudicate the dispute, entrusting it to a body acting as per the will of the parties. Consequently, the state court control over an arbitration award, as much as it is necessary and statutorily guaranteed, is not instance control and by its nature must be incomplete, limited to the most far-reaching shortcomings and failures of arbitration, which are relevant not only from the point of view of the parties, but also of the general interest.

2. Given the vital role of the principle of the court being bound by the claim (…), it is deemed that the case in which an arbitral tribunal rules ultra petita ad aliu should not revoke the control of the state court. This assumption should be considered legitimate also in the light of the Polish Civil Procedure Code, with the proviso that the character of arbitration may justify an approach to the assessment of the limits of the claim more flexible than in the case of state courts.

3. [A]lthough, Art. 1188 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code does not indicate obligatory elements of a statement of claim in arbitration proceedings, including the exact wording of the claim (cf. Art. 187 § 1 point 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code), nonetheless the necessity to concretise the claim as an element determining the subject matter of arbitration proceedings may be derived indirectly from Art. 1202 first sentence of the Polish Civil Procedure Code; it may also be derived from the rules of procedure agreed upon by the parties or defined in the rules of arbitration.

4. Going beyond the limits of the statement of claim collided not only with the principle of availability which by virtue of its functions and the importance of the freedom of will for the institution of arbitration must be included into the principles of arbitration proceedings (…), but also with the principle of equality of the parties.

5. [S]ince the Arbitration Court ruled on a different claim than the claim advanced, the applicant was deprived of the ability to defend its rights.