Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg)
Available documents (5)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Germany / 14 March 2006 / Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) / 6 Sch 11/05
Country Germany Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) Date 14 March 2006 Case number 6 Sch 11/05 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg
Languages English Summary The parties concluded a contract for cabling works in Mozambique which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A dispute arose and the Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings in Geneva. The Respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the tribunal rendered a partial award confirming its jurisdiction and allocating the costs incurred up to that point in the proceedings. Meanwhile, the Respondent initiated proceedings against the Claimant in the German state courts, which were dismissed as being inadmissible. The Claimant sought enforcement of the decision on costs before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Hamburg. The Respondent opposed enforcement arguing that the arbitral tribunal had lacked jurisdiction due to the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. It further argued that because the arbitral tribunal had lacked jurisdiction, the Oberlandesgericht did not have jurisdiction to decide on the enforceability of the partial award. The Respondent also argued that the partial award was not enforceable because it had not conclusively decided the entire dispute, or a distinct part thereof. Finally, it argued that the partial award improperly contained a decision on costs, which could have legally binding effect only for the final award and which would not make the partial award enforceable. The Oberlandesgericht granted enforcement of the partial award, holding that none of the grounds for refusal of enforcement under Article V NYC were applicable. It held that the arbitration clause was valid under Article II(2) NYC, and that the Respondent’s objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement were unfounded, as held by the German courts in the court proceedings previously initiated by the Respondent. The Oberlandesgericht further concluded that the partial award was enforceable since the arbitrator had arrived at a final decision on the issue of jurisdiction and on the allocation of costs for that phase of the proceedings. affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1323&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) Date 24 January 2003 Case number 11 Sch 06/01 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(e) Source DIS
Summary The Parties concluded a contract of sale for three shipments of coffee. The Buyer had sent a signed confirmation of contract to the Seller, which included standard terms and conditions and provided for the arbitration of disputes at the place determined in the contract, according to the rules and usages of the local coffee trade organization and that the contract be interpreted according to the laws of the state in which the agreed place of arbitration was located. The confirmation provided for “Arbitration: Hamburg”. The confirmation further contained a request to return a signed copy the the Buyer for acceptance, which the Buyer did not do. A dispute arose between the Parties and the Buyer obtained a favorable award from an arbitral tribunal in Hamburg. It sought enforcement by a Polish court, which denied enforcement on the grounds that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the Parties. The Claimant then sought enforcement in Germany before the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court Hamburg). The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht granted enforcement, holding that the Polish decision did not impact its decision, as it concerned procedural rather than substantive matters. It reasoned that German courts need only take into account the setting aside or suspension of an award in the country of origin as a possible ground for refusal under Article V(1)(e) NYC. It further held that the Parties' choice of German law as applicable to contract equally applied to the determination of the validity of the arbitration agreement. Under German law, the Parties had validly agreed to arbitrate. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=265&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) Date 30 July 1998 Case number 6 Sch 3/98 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) Summary The Claimant sought enforcement of an award rendered in London. The Defendant maintained that there is no valid arbitration clause within the meaning of Article II NYC, that the award was vitiated by lack of oral hearing and the granting of post-award interest that had not been claimed. The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Hamburg granted enforcement, holding that parties validly concluded agreement by exchange of telefaxes. It reasoned that there were no grounds for refusal under Article V(1)(b) NYC, as the Defendant had been duly informed of the proceedings and the arbitral tribunal had otherwise complied with the requirements of due process. The Court reasoned that arbitral rules provide that decision could be rendered without oral hearing, so there were no grounds for refusal under Article V(1)(d) NYC. An arbitral tribunal can, at its discretion, award interest and not exceed its authority in the sense of Article V(1)(c) NYC. The Court held that an award could be refused enforcement under Article V(2)(b) only where arbitration is vitiated by a grave fault that affects fundamentals of social and economic life. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=240&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) Date 30 July 1998 Parties N/A Case number 6 Sch 3/98 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | IV | II(2) | IV(1) | V | V(1) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4135&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) Date 12 March 1998 Case number 6 U 110/97 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) Source DIS
Summary The Parties entered into a construction contract according to which the Defendant agreed to pay 4% of the total sum of contract to the Claimant in exchange for its services. They subsequently amended their first agreement, lowering the percentage to 3% of total contract sum. Both agreements contained an arbitration clause providing for the resolution of disputes at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Zurich. The Defendant terminated the contract, alleging that the Claimant had not performed and that their agreement did not comply with Syrian law. The Defendant refused to pay any sums to the Claimant. The Claimant initiated ICC proceedings and obtained a favorable award, which was granted enforcement by the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg. The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) affirmed the lower court decision granting enforcement. It found that there was no invalid arbitration clause justifying non-enforcement under Article V(1)(a) NYC, because the alleged nullity of the contract did not affect the validity of the arbitration clause. The Defendant had failed to show sufficient grounds for violation of public policy justifying non-enforcement under Article V(2)(b). According to the Court, the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award will only be refused where the award is tainted by a grave defect that affects the fundamental principles of state and economic life, or where it is unacceptably at odds with German principles of justice. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=238&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
