1958 New York Convention Guide

Home

1958 New York Convention Guide

contact

A-
A
A+

1958 New York Convention Guide

Home

France, Cour d'appel d'Orléans (Court of Appeal of Orléans)

Concepts :

France

Available documents

sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection Quick view Refine your search

France / 05 October 2000 / France, Cour d'appel d'Orléans / Société Recam Sonofadex v. Société Cantieri Rizzardi de Gianfranco Rizzardi / 99/02678

Country France

Court France, Cour d'appel d'Orléans (Court of Appeal of Orléans)

Date 05 October 2000

Parties Société Recam Sonofadex v. Société Cantieri Rizzardi de Gianfranco Rizzardi

Case number 99/02678

Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI

Source
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel d'Orléans

Summary An award was rendered in Italy on 22 February 1999 in favor of an Italian Company (Rizzardi). In an order issued on 28 June 1999, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Blois (First Instance Court of Blois) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the losing party (Recam) argued, inter alia, that (i) enforcement should be rejected pursuant to the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, which applies to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, (ii) the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance lacked jurisdiction to grant the enforcement of the award by means of an ex parte order, (iii) enforcement should not be granted pending the action initiated before the Rome Court of Appeal which has a suspensive effect under Italian law, and that (iv) due process had been violated and the enforcement would be contrary to public international policy. The Cour d'appel d'Orléans (Orléans Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It first held that the Brussels Convention of 1968 does not apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and that, given that France and Italy are parties to the NYC, the reciprocity reservation made by France was satisfied. It then reasoned that, pursuant to article III NYC, French procedural rules are applicable as to the enforcement of an award in France and that the enforcement order complied with the provisions of Article 1478 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As to the effect of the pending proceedings before the Rome Court of Appeal, the Cour d'appel d'Orléans ruled that, in accordance with articles V(1)(e) and VI NYC, enforcement may be refused only when the award has been suspended in the country where it was rendered. If a request for suspension of the award has been made but not granted, the court in charge of the enforcement in France has the possibility to adjourn the decision, should it be deemed necessary. It then noted that even though Recam had initiated proceedings which have a suspensive effect, a suspension of the award had not been granted since the Rome Court of appeal had rejected the recourse for suspension of the decision of the Tribunal of Latina allowing enforcement of the award in Italy. Lastly, it found that due process has not been violated and that enforcement was not contrary to international public policy.

see also :

VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. The requirement that an application for the setting aside or suspension of an award be pending / §10

Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=158&opac_view=6

Attachment (1)

Original Language
Adobe Acrobat PDF

1958 New York Convention Guide pmb

Official Websites

UNCITRAL Materials

The Guide

Search

Around the Guide

The Website

newyorkconvention1958.org

This website was created to host information on the implementation of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, signed in New York on 10 June 1958, with a view of promoting its uniform and effective application throughout the world.

The website provides access to the case-law from a number of jurisdictions on the application of the Convention by domestic courts as well as information on the ratification of the Convention by selected States.

This website was developed by Shearman & Sterling and Columbia Law School, in cooperation with UNCITRAL.

Country	France
Court	France, Cour d'appel d'Orléans (Court of Appeal of Orléans)
Date	05 October 2000
Parties	Société Recam Sonofadex v. Société Cantieri Rizzardi de Gianfranco Rizzardi
Case number	99/02678
Applicable NYC Provisions	III \| V \| V(1) \| V(1)(e) \| VI
Source	Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel d'Orléans
Summary	An award was rendered in Italy on 22 February 1999 in favor of an Italian Company (Rizzardi). In an order issued on 28 June 1999, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Blois (First Instance Court of Blois) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the losing party (Recam) argued, inter alia, that (i) enforcement should be rejected pursuant to the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, which applies to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, (ii) the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance lacked jurisdiction to grant the enforcement of the award by means of an ex parte order, (iii) enforcement should not be granted pending the action initiated before the Rome Court of Appeal which has a suspensive effect under Italian law, and that (iv) due process had been violated and the enforcement would be contrary to public international policy. The Cour d'appel d'Orléans (Orléans Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It first held that the Brussels Convention of 1968 does not apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and that, given that France and Italy are parties to the NYC, the reciprocity reservation made by France was satisfied. It then reasoned that, pursuant to article III NYC, French procedural rules are applicable as to the enforcement of an award in France and that the enforcement order complied with the provisions of Article 1478 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As to the effect of the pending proceedings before the Rome Court of Appeal, the Cour d'appel d'Orléans ruled that, in accordance with articles V(1)(e) and VI NYC, enforcement may be refused only when the award has been suspended in the country where it was rendered. If a request for suspension of the award has been made but not granted, the court in charge of the enforcement in France has the possibility to adjourn the decision, should it be deemed necessary. It then noted that even though Recam had initiated proceedings which have a suspensive effect, a suspension of the award had not been granted since the Rome Court of appeal had rejected the recourse for suspension of the decision of the Tribunal of Latina allowing enforcement of the award in Italy. Lastly, it found that due process has not been violated and that enforcement was not contrary to international public policy.
see also :	VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. The requirement that an application for the setting aside or suspension of an award be pending / §10
Link to the record	https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=158&opac_view=6