Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Coimbra Court of Appeal)
Available documents (2)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Portugal / 19 June 2013 / Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Coimbra Court of Appeal) / Unifac v. Barod / 1630/06.2YRCBR.C2
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Coimbra Court of Appeal) Date 19 June 2013 Parties Unifac v. Barod Case number 1630/06.2YRCBR.C2 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages English Summary Company A and Company B entered into two agreements for the sale of Brazilian yellow soybeans. Both agreements contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in London under the Grain and Feed Trade Association (“GAFTA”) Arbitration Rules. A dispute arose and Company A initiated two arbitral proceedings in London in accordance with the GAFTA Arbitration Rules. Company B did not participate in the arbitral proceedings and the two awards were rendered in Company A’s favour. Company B did not appeal any of the arbitral awards. Company A then sought and was granted recognition of both awards before the Tribunal Judicial de Castelo Branco (Castelo Branco Court of First Instance). Company B appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Coimbra Court of Appeal) on the grounds that (i) arbitration agreements contained in standard form contracts not negotiated by the parties are illegal under Portuguese law and (ii) recognition of the awards should be denied as it was not aware of the content of the arbitration agreement. The Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra reversed the decision of the Tribunal Judicial de Castelo Branco and denied recognition of the arbitral awards. The Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra noted that the arbitration clauses were (i) “standard form clauses” since they were not negotiated by the parties and (ii) unclear given that a normal person could not understand the meaning of expressions or abbreviations such as “FOSFA 22”, “Regulation 125” and “GAFTA” contained therein. The Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra therefore held that the arbitration agreements should be excluded from the main contracts and that the arbitration clauses were invalid. It therefore denied recognition of the arbitral awards pursuant to Article V(1)(a) NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1580&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Coimbra Court of Appeal) Date 19 January 2010 Case number 70/09.6TBCBR.C1 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 A (a Greek company) and Company B (a Portuguese Company) entered into a charterparty containing an arbitration agreement. A dispute arose and the matter was submitted to arbitration in London with English law governing the dispute. On 10 January 2008, an award was rendered in favour of Company A. Shortly thereafter Company A appeared before the Tribunal Judicial de Coimbra (Coimbra Court of First Instance) seeking recognition of the award. Company B opposed recognition on the ground that the Tribunal Judicial de Coimbra lacked jurisdiction to recognise the arbitral award. Company B argued that the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Coimbra Court of Appeal) had jurisdiction over the matter, or, in the alternative, given that the subject-matter of the contract dealt with the chartering of ships, the Tribunal Marítimo de Lisboa (Lisboa Maritime Court of First Instance) had jurisdiction. The Tribunal Judicial de Coimbra dismissed Company B’s arguments and granted recognition of the arbitral award. Company B appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra. The Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra upheld the decision of the Tribunal Judicial de Coimbra ruling that the recognition proceedings were properly brought before the Tribunal Judicial de Coimbra. Relying on Article III NYC and the Portuguese Arbitration Act, the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra held that because the Tribunal Judicial de Coimbra exercises jurisdiction over recognition of domestic arbitral awards, it, and not the Tribunal da Relação or the Tribunal Marítimo de Lisboa, has jurisdiction to recognise foreign arbitral awards. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1578&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
