Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln)
Available documents (8)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Germany / 26 February 2014 / Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) / N/A / 26/02/2014
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 26 February 2014 Parties N/A Case number 26/02/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(d) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4124&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 06 July 2012 Parties N/A Case number 06/07/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4126&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 26 October 2004 Case number 9 Sch 12/04 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source DIS Languages English Summary The Applicant obtained a favorable award, rendered pursuant to the rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in Moscow. The Applicant sought enforcement of the award in Germany, which was opposed by the Respondent, arguing that it had not been informed about the arbitration proceedings and had learned about the arbitral award only through the application for enforcement. It also argued that it had not entered into a contract with the Applicant and that, in any case, the parties had agreed to submit their disputes before a different arbitral tribunal.” The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Köln granted enforcement, holding that the application was well founded since none of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the NYC were applicable. It found that the Respondent’s allegation that it had not been informed about the arbitration was contradicted by evidence. It also found that the arbitral tribunal had affirmed its own jurisdiction on the basis that there existed no other arbitral institution in Moscow than the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation that the parties had contractually agreed to. Moreover, it found that the arbitral tribunal had confirmed that the Applicant, in its capacity as legal successor of the original contracting party, was entitled to pursuing its claims against the Respondent. In consequence, since the arbitral tribunal had conclusively ruled on them, both the question of jurisdiction and the question of the Applicant’s entitlement to pursue its claims, could not be reassessed by the Oberlandesgericht. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1325&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 23 April 2004 Case number 9 Sch 01/03 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | VII(1) | V(2)(b) Source DIS Summary This case concerned one of three awards rendered in 2002 by International Commercial Arbitration Court in Russian Federation (ICAC). The dispute involved a sales contract concluded by the Parties. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Köln granted enforcement, finding that under Article VII(1) NYC, the more favourable provisions of German law apply, pursuant to which there is no requirement for the Claimant to submit a translation of the award. There was no violation of public policy justifying non-recognition under Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht considered that there must be a causal link between the award and the violation of public policy, i.e., a violation of minimum standards of procedural justice and the award must be based on that violation. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=274&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 06 October 2003 Case number 16 W 35/02 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source DIS Summary A German Investor and a Russian State Agency established a joint stock company under Russian law. The Investor initiated an arbitration at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce under the Germany-Russia Bilateral Investment Treaty and obtained favorable award. Russia commenced setting-aside proceedings against the award in Sweden. The Stockholm Court of First Instance denied the annulment request. Its decision was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal. The Investor obtained enforcement in Germany from the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court Berlin). It then sought an execution order from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Köln, which was vacated by the same Court following an objection by the Russia on the grounds that it had not waived its immunity in respect of those claims. The Investor appealed to the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court Cologne). The Oberlandesgericht Köln dismissed the appeal, finding that the enforcement order was invalid. It reasoned that Article III NYC, which provides that substantially equal requirements shall apply to the enforcement of foreign and domestic awards, does not imply a waiver of sovereign immunity as it concerns execution on certain assets. The Court added that, as a consequence of the equal-treatment requirement under Article III NYC, general rules of international law that are part of the German legal system apply to the enforcement of foreign awards. According to these rules, claims concerning sovereign aims are immune from execution. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=270&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 13 November 2000 Case number 9 Sch 04/00 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1)(a) Source DIS Summary The Claimant sought enforcement of award rendered on 7 December 1999 in the Russian Federation by the Court of International Commercial Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC). The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Cologne granted enforcement, holding that the Claimant had fulfilled the formal conditions for enforcement under Article IV NYC by supplying a certified copy of the award and agreement. According to the Oberlandesgericht, Article IV NYC is a provision that purely concerns evidence. Article IV(1)(a) NYC lists the documents through which the authenticity of the award can be proven, if disputed by the party contesting enforcement. In this case, the Claimant was not required to prove the existence and authenticity of the original award, as this was not in dispute. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=254&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 15 February 2000 Case number 9 Sch 13/99 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) Source DIS Summary A distribution contract contained a clause for resolution of disputes at the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and for the application of Spanish law. The Distributor obtained a favorable award and the Seller filed a request for annulment with the LCIA, alleging false testimony by Distributor's representatives. This request was pending at time of the enforcement decision in Germany. The Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court Cologne) granted enforcement. It reasoned that even if the Seller's argument that the arbitral tribunal should have applied the Convention on the International Sale of Goods rather than Spanish law were correct, there would be no violation of German international public policy justifying non-enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC. According to the Oberlandesgericht, an award may only be reviewed by the enforcing court to ascertain whether it violates the elementary principles of the German legal system. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=249&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional of Köln) Date 16 December 1992 Case number 16 W 43/92 Applicable NYC Provisions II | VII | II(2) | VII(1) | II(1) Summary The Claimant sought the enforcement of an arbitral award obtained on the basis of the General Conditions of Sale contained in the Parties' contract, which expressly referred to the ECE 188 standard contract containing an ICC arbitration clause. The Claimant had sent a confirmation order to the Defendant, which contained the General Conditions but not the ECE contract. Enforcement was refused at First Instance on the grounds that there was no valid agreement in accordance with Article II(2) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Cologne reversed the First Instance decision and granted enforcement, holding that an arbitration agreement may be tacitly concluded between merchants under German law, which applies on the basis of the more-favorable-right rule under Article VII(1) NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=233&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
