sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) 

Germany / 06 December 2001 / Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart / 1 Sch 12/01

Country	Germany
Court	Germany, Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
Date	06 December 2001
Case number	1 Sch 12/01
Applicable NYC Provisions	V | IV | V(1)(c)
Source	DIS
Summary	The Parties concluded a sales contract providing for the application of Italian law and the arbitration of all disputes by a sole arbitrator under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The Seller ceded the contract to its parent company. A dispute arose when the parent company terminated the contract. The Seller obtained a favorable ICC award, with the seat of the arbitration in Italy but hearings in Switzerland. The Seller then sought enforcement in Germany before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Stuttgart. The Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart granted enforcement, finding that the request satisfied the requirements of Article IV NYC, and that there were no grounds for non-enforcement under Article V NYC. The Oberlandesgericht held that the dispute was not outside of scope of the arbitration clause merely because contract has been ceded to parent company and that the termination of the contract had no effect on the validity of the arbitration clause for the purposes of Article V(1)(c) NYC. It noted the Parties had entered into a further agreement to arbitrate by signing ICC Terms of Reference. Enforcement of the arbitral award must not be denied on this ground because the award granted the Claimant more than it claimed. It held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction even if hearings were held in Switzerland and not in Italy, since this was not a ground for non-enforcement listed in Article V(1) NYC. It found that there was no violation of due process justifying non-enforcement under Article V(2)(b). Contrary to the Buyer's contention, the Tribunal was not required to explicitly address all arguments of the losing party in its reasons. Nor was there a violation of due process because the arbitrator deemed certain facts to be irrelevant. The length of the proceedings could not justify non-enforcement under Article V(1)(c) NYC because the Buyer did not argue that time limit set in arbitration clause had been exceeded.
Link to the record	https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=259&opac_view=6

Attachment (1)

Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF

Germany / 20 September 2001 / Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart / 1 Sch 14/01

Country	Germany
Court	Germany, Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
Date	20 September 2001
Case number	1 Sch 14/01
Applicable NYC Provisions	V
Source	DIS
Summary	The Parties concluded a sales contract providing for arbitration in Belarus. The Seller obtained a favorable award and sought enforcement in Germany. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Stuttgart subsequently received a letter through the Higher Commercial Court of Belarus asking permission to execute the award under the NYC. The Buyer argued that there was no indication of the legitimacy of the person who had signed the letter or of the nature of his power to represent the Seller. The Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart granted enforcement, holding that a request for permission to execute an award under the NYC is equivalent to a request for enforcement provided under German law. The Court considered that it appeared from the letter that the Seller was the applicant. The Oberlandesgericht deemed that the request was made by the Seller's authorized representative. The Buyer did not raise any grounds for refusal under Article V(1) NYC.
Link to the record	https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=257&opac_view=6

Attachment (1)

Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF