Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal)
Available documents (9)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Portugal / 05 March 2020 / Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) / 415/18.8T8SNT.L1-2
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 05 March 2020 Case number 415/18.8T8SNT.L1-2 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages Portuguese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6070&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 10 October 2019 Case number 1667/18.9YRLSB-B-2 Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages Portuguese affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6072&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 25 March 2019 Case number 1667/18.9YRLSB-B.L1-2 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages Portuguese affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6071&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 11 December 2018 Case number 2004/08.6TVLSB.L2-7 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages Portuguese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6073&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 02 June 2016 Case number 103/13.1YRLSB-2 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | II(3) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) | XVI | XVI(1) Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages Portuguese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6075&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 16 January 2014 Case number 1036/12.4YRLSB-8 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Registry of the Court
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1650&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 12 July 2012 Parties Xilam Films v. Lnk-Video S.A Case number 7328/10.0TBOER.L1-1 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages English Summary On 31 January 2006, Xilam (a French company) entered into a license agreement with Lnk Videos (a Portuguese company) for the license of a movie in Portugal and several African countries. The license agreement contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute arising thereunder would be submitted to arbitration under the rules of the Independent Film & Television Alliance. A dispute arose and Xilam initiated arbitration in France. The arbitrator decided in favour of Xilam, ruling that all distribution rights would cease from October 2008. Xilam then successfully sought recognition of the arbitral award before the Tribunal Judicial de Oeiras (Oeiras Court of First Instance). Lnk Videos appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) on the grounds that (i) the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties as required by Article, (ii) under Article III NYC and applicable Portuguese domestic rules, the domestic court with jurisdiction over the recognition proceedings was the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa and not the Tribunal Judicial de Oeiras, (iii) the lower court applied incorrect Portuguese rules of civil procedure to govern the time limit alluded to in Article V NYC for filing a request to oppose recognition, and (iv) the tribunal awarded penal damages in violation of Portuguese public policy and Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa affirmed the decision of the Tribunal Judicial de Oeiras, thereby confirming recognition of the award. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa noted that the time limit alluded to in Article V NYC relates to a deadline imposed upon the respondent to meet its burden of proof with respect to the grounds in Article V(1) NYC. It further noted that the tribunal which has jurisdiction over enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is that which has jurisdiction over enforcement of domestic arbitral awards in accordance with Article III NYC, providing that the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon shall not impose substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which the NYC applies than are imposed on domestic arbitral awards. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa therefore dismissed the argument that Portuguese rules of civil procedure impose an additional condition for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards dealing with rights of a private nature and ruled that the Tribunal Judicial de Oeiras, and not the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, had jurisdiction. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa dismissed the argument that the arbitral tribunal had not been constituted in accordance with the agreement of the parties in accordance with the NYC. Finally, as regards the argument that the award violated public policy, the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa referred to Portuguese law and not the NYC and held that, since penalty clauses are often used in licence agreements and are compatible with Portuguese law, the arbitral award did not violate Portuguese international public policy. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1574&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 30 June 2011 Case number 2004/08.6TVLSB-A-7 Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages English Summary In an arbitration seated in Brazil, the arbitral tribunal rendered an award in favour of A against B. B, the respondent in the arbitral proceedings, sought to set aside the arbitral award in Brazil before the Juízo da Vara Cível de Sao Paulo (Court of First Instance of São Paulo). Pending annulment proceedings, A sought recognition of the arbitral award before the Juízos Cíveis de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of First Instance). The Juízos Cíveis de Lisboa granted B’s request for a stay of the recognition proceedings until the Juízo da Vara Cível de Sao Paulo had ruled upon the annulment of the award pursuant to Article VI NYC. A then requested that the Juízos Cíveis de Lisboa order B to give suitable security alleging that the expected delay caused by the annulment proceedings would result in considerable losses to A. The Juízos Cíveis de Lisboa denied A’s request and A then appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal). The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa reversed the decision of the Juízos Cíveis de Lisboa and ordered B to deliver suitable security. In so doing, the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa relied on Article VI NYC, which allows for the suspension of proceedings relating to an award’s recognition and enforcement. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa held that (i) the body before which recognition of an arbitral award is sought may, if it considers it proper, and on application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the other party to give suitable security, (ii) tribunals had a wide margin of discretion to determine whether to allow for suspension of proceedings, and (iii) given the excessive delay of the annulment proceedings, an order for suitable security to be provided was reasonable. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1576&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 08 June 2010 Case number 243/10.9YRLSB-7 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages English Summary Company T obtained a favourable award in an arbitration in Zurich under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. In seeking to enforce the award before the Juízo de Execução de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Enforcement), Company T claimed that, under both the NYC and the Portuguese Arbitration Act, the award was immediately and automatically enforceable. The Juízo de Execução de Lisboa denied enforcement of the arbitral award on the ground that the award can only be enforced after having been confirmed and recognised by a competent Portuguese court. Company T appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) on the grounds that the NYC should prevail over Portuguese procedural law and Article III NYC draws a parallel between foreign arbitral awards and domestic arbitral awards. Specifically, Company T maintained that Article III NYC provides that foreign arbitral awards should face no more onerous conditions for recognition and enforcement than domestic arbitral awards. As such, because there is no requirement that domestic arbitral awards be recognised prior to being enforced, foreign arbitral awards should benefit from the same treatment under the principle of equivalence. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa affirmed the decision of the Juízo de Execução de Lisboa, thereby denying enforcement of the arbitral award. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa noted that even though the NYC is in force in Portugal, a foreign arbitral award is not automatically enforceable, but must go through a prior process of review and recognition by the competent court. It analysed Articles I and III NYC and held that enforcement and recognition of an arbitral award are different in nature, and, as such, should be resolved by different courts. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa further held that while Portugal was committed to ensuring that the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is carried out in accordance with the NYC, the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards made in another Contracting State is not automatic, and must be carried out pursuant to procedural rules of Portuguese law. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1571&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
