France / 24 November 2011 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) v. Société National Gas Company (NATCAS) / 10/16525
Country | France |
Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
Date | 24 November 2011 |
Parties | Société Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) v. Société National Gas Company (NATCAS) |
Case number | 10/16525 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | VII | VII(1) |
Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d'appel de Paris |
Languages | English |
Language(s) | French |
Summary | A gas supply contract was concluded between an Egyptian public entity (Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation - EGPC) and another Egyptian company (National Gas Company - NATGAS). NATGAS subscribed various US dollar denominated loans in the context of the transaction. A decree subsequently cancelled the Egyptian currency's parity with the US dollar, which increased the financial burden upon NATGAS. EGPC refused to bear these additional costs and NATGAS filed a Request for arbitration before the Regional Commercial Arbitration Center of Cairo. In an award dated 12 September 2009, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of NATGAS. In an order issued on 19 May 2010, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award. EGPC appealed this decision on several grounds: (i) the award had been annulled by the Egyptian Courts, (ii) the arbitration agreement was void or nonexistent, (iii) violation of due process, (iv) violation of international public policy. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) first stated that Articles 1498 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e. now Articles 1514 and et seq. pursuant to the French Decree of 13 January 2011) apply to both international arbitral awards and arbitral awards rendered abroad. In accordance with Article VII NYC, it ruled that French law is applicable as being more favorable than the NYC (given than it does not provide the setting aside of a foreign award as a ground for non-enforcement) and rejected EGPC's claim based on Articles 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e. now Articles 1514 and 1520 5°). It also dismissed the other claims raised by EGPC and upheld the enforcement of the award. |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |