Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf)
Available documents (6)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Germany / 22 July 2014 / Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) / N/A / 22/07/2014
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) Date 22 July 2014 Parties N/A Case number 22/07/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(1) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4057&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) Date 24 January 2011 Parties I-9 U 7/10 Case number I-9 U 7/10 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | VII Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4061&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) Date 15 December 2009 Case number I-4 Sch 10/09 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(b) | V(2)(b) | IV(1)(b) Source DIS Summary The Parties' U.S. parent company concluded a sales contract in 2003, which contained an arbitration clause. The Claimant assigned all rights under the contract in 2006. In 2008, the Claimant commenced arbitration before a sole arbitrator. The Defendant participated, but informed the sole arbitrator that it would not attend the hearing due to financial difficulties. The arbitrator rendered an award in 2009 in the Claimant's favor. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf hold that the award was enforceable. It reasoned that the Claimant had supplied documents that complied with the less strict formal conditions of German law for the recognition of a foreign arbitral award, which applied in virtue of the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC. The Court reasoned that an award was valid and final under the applicable American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules, and that this condition must be examined by the Court of its own initiative, pursuant to German law. The fact that the Defendant did not attend the hearing did not violate due process or public policy, since it had expressly informed the arbitrator that it would not attend and was fully informed of the proceedings. The applicable AAA Rules provided that an award did not have to contain reasons, and this possibility does not violate basic principles of German law. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=306&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) Date 06 March 2008 Parties N/A Case number I-6 U 109/07 Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source Languages German affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4063&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) Date 19 January 2005 Case number I-26 Sch 05/03 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(e) Source DIS Languages English Summary A company obtained a favorable arbitral award in arbitration proceedings conducted pursuant to the arbitration rules of the Bucharest Court of International Commercial Arbitration and sought enforcement of the award in Germany. The Respondent objected to the enforcement on the grounds that the Romanian Supreme Court had ordered the Applicant to pay certain sums to the Respondent, which would set off the Applicant’s arbitration claims. The Applicant contended that claims for set-off could not be raised in enforcement proceedings. It also raised various other defenses against the claim for set-off. The Oberlandesgericht refused enforcement. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf stated that under Article V(1)(e) NYC in order for a foreign award to be enforceable it had to have become binding pursuant to the relevant law, here German law, which it found to be the case. The Oberlandesgericht also found that there were no grounds to refuse enforcement under Article V(2) NYC. However, it eventually refused enforcement, holding that the Respondent’s set-off claims were both admissible and well-founded. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1330&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) Date 21 July 2004 Case number VI Sch (Kart) 1/02 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(2)(b) | IV(1)(b) | IV(1)(a) Source DIS
Languages English Summary The Respondent entered into Lead Agreement with the Applicant which granted the Applicant an exclusive global license for the construction and sale of heat exchangers and under which the Respondent also agreed to stop producing and selling the licensed objects itself. Subsequently, as per the Lead Agreement, both parties entered into a separate license agreement and a side agreement, which stated that all agreements concluded in connection with the Lead Agreement would only be declaratory in nature, with the parties’ commitments being limited to those made in the Lead Agreement. The Lead Agreement and the license agreement both contained identical arbitration clauses. A dispute arose and the Applicant alleged that the Respondent had violated the terms of the exclusive global license and its commitment not to compete with the Respondent. The Applicant initiated arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Rules) with the seat in Zurich, which rendered an award that was largely in the Applicant’s favor. The Applicant sought to enforce the award before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf, which the Respondent opposed, arguing that the license agreement was a sham and that, in any case, it was void since it did not meet the form requirements of German competition law. In addition, the Respondent alleged that enforcement should be rejected under Article V(2)(b) NYC because the agreement violated European and German competition law. The Oberlandesgericht declared the award enforceable, holding that the Applicant had met the formal requirements set out in Article IV(1) NYC read with Section 1064(1) of the German Civil Procedure Code, as it had submitted certified copies of the award and of the arbitration agreement as per Article IV(1)(a) and IV(1)(b) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht found that even if the arbitration clauses were void, this would not prevent recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award since the Respondent had participated in the merits phase of the arbitration. The Oberlandesgericht found that the German competition law provisions cited by the Respondent were not applicable. With respect to the alleged violation of German public policy, the Oberlandesgericht clarified that it would not have any discretion to refuse enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC if the arbitral award indeed violated German public policy. It said that it was not bound by the factual or legal findings of the arbitral tribunal in determining whether the award violated public policy. It also held that the burden fell upon the Respondent to prove that any of the grounds for refusal of enforcement were applicable. Regarding public policy, it stated that an award violated German public policy when it violated the fundamental principles of the legal, economic and/or social order of the state in such an obvious and significant manner that the decision was unacceptable under basic national principles. Therefore, the recognition of a foreign arbitral award was not subject to any different, and in particular, any less restrictive or further reaching requirements than foreign court judgments. The Oberlandesgericht said that while the fundamental provisions of German competition law and the provisions of European competition law, which are directly effective in Germany, formed part of German public policy, provisions which served merely a practical purpose, such as the form requirement under Section 34 of the German Law Against Restraints on Competition applicable at that time, were not part of public policy. It clarified that the relevant time for assessing a violation of German public policy was at the time of enforcement, and not the time at which the award was rendered or the parties had concluded the agreements in question. Finally, the Oberlandesgericht rejected the argument that there had been any public policy violations, stating that the Respondent had failed to prove the facts on which its objection was based. see also :
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / c. Mandatory rules as public policy / §19
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Ex officio review, burden of proof and standard of proof / §57
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a. The public policy exception under the Convention / §9
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a.Substantive public policy / §32
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a.Substantive public policy / §33
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1317&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
