Art. 1208 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code stipulates that if an application for interpretation of an award is submitted, a petition to set aside the award may be filed only within 2 months after service by the arbitral tribunal of the ruling on the application.

In the case law of the Polish Supreme Court a view prevails that an arbitration award may be set aside only for reasons listed in Art. 1206 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code. A common court cannot substantively consider a dispute between parties to arbitration proceedings in this type of proceedings, it does not examine whether the arbitration award is contrary to substantive law or whether the arbitration award is based on facts quoted therein, or whether these facts had been correctly established.

1. The essence of arbitration is the autonomy and freedom of action of the parties and an arbitration tribunal is not bound by the provisions of the Polish Civil Procedure Code on proceedings before a state court (Art. 1184 § 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code). It is only bound by the mandatory provisions of the Polish Civil Procedure Code which regulate the arbitration procedure (…).

2. The scope of the final resolution by an arbitration tribunal of a submitted claim shall result from the conclusion of the arbitration award and cannot be derived from the statement of reasons (…).

3. [T]he basis in Art. 1206 § 2 point 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code is justified, if the effect of an arbitration award is contrary to the fundamental principles of the legal order of the state. These shall be understood not only as constitutional norms of fundamental importance, but also as the ground rules governing particular areas of substantive and procedural law.

4. A court, in proceedings to set aside an arbitration award, cannot resolve a dispute between the parties of arbitration proceedings as to the merits. Consequently, the court cannot examine, whether the arbitration award is not contrary to substantive law and whether this award is based on the facts given in its statement of reasons and whether these facts have been properly established.

5. The principle of the binding force of final court rulings (Art. 365 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code) as an element of the values protected constitutionally and in the international order is a part of the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland. This rule also applies to arbitration awards after their recognition or enforcement by a state court. Such an award, thanks to the state court judgment related to it, has the same legal effect as a court judgment (Art. 1212 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code) (…).

6. A state court shall not allow two rulings between the same parties whose enforcement is guaranteed by the state, but which would resolve the same issue differently, to be present in the legal system, since this would undermine the authority of the justice system and the confidence in the courts, colliding with the principle of the stability of final rulings and the principle of legal certainty (…).

1. It was no accident that the lawmaker has used the word “reasons” in Art. 1197 § 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that an arbitration award does not have to fully comply with the requirements of a justification of a state court ruling. As it has already been explained in the case law, if it is possible to infer from an arbitration award what prerequisites guided the arbitration court when it ruled on the demands of the parties, it can be deemed that these requirements have been fulfilled (…).

2. [J]urisdiction of an arbitral tribunal derived from an arbitration agreement does not have the character of a specific pre-jurisdiction – an arbitral resolves a case independently, instead of a state court, therefore it is the arbitral tribunal that is obliged to determine the factual basis and to legally assess the dispute. 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 neveau (…).

3. [A] state court considering a petition to set aside an arbitration award does not interpret the agreement made by a parties to the dispute, and therefore it does not apply the aforementioned provision independently, but it only (…) examines the circumstances indicated in Art. 1206 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code, if the petitioner relies on them, and ex officio examines the circumstances specified in Art. 1206 § 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code.

1. [P]roceedings initiated by a petition to set aside an arbitration award do not lead to a repeated substantive consideration of the dispute, but their purpose is only to verify the applicant’s pleadings presented in the petition as to existence of grounds referred to in Art. 1206 § 1 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code, and to assess if any of the conditions referred to in Art. Art. 1206 § 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code exist, regardless of whether the applicant relied thereon (…).

2. Application by an arbitral tribunal of the substantive law applicable in the case is subject to control by a common court, only inasmuch as it is required to assess the award in terms of compliance with the public policy clause specified in Art. 1206 § 2 (2) of the Polish Civil Procedure Code (…).

3. An arbitration award may be set aside pursuant to the public policy clause, only if violation of substantive law by an arbitral tribunal has consequences which are impossible to be consistent with the fundamental principles of Polish legal order, i.e. which are clearly and grossly contrary to these principles (…). An ad casum assessment whether an award violates the fundamental principles of legal order shall be made with caution, with a preference for restrictive interpretation of its wording (…).

4. Abstractedly speaking, there are no doubts that an assessment of an arbitral tribunal under Art. 1206 § 1 and 2 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code requires – to a smaller or larger extent – determination of the course of broadly understood arbitration proceedings (procedural actions of the parties, procedural decisions of the arbitration tribunal, examination of evidence, factual findings and interpretation, as well as application by the arbitral tribunal of relevant provisions of substantive law (…)), which also applies to the appellate court.   

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 (…).