France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles)
Available documents
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
France / 12 March 2020 / France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) / Société Euro Herramientas v. Société The Stanley Works Limited / 19/07463
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) Date 12 March 2020 Parties Société Euro Herramientas v. Société The Stanley Works Limited Case number 19/07463 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6339&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) Date 06 April 2018 Parties Syndicat Mixte des Aéroports de Charente (SMAC) v. Société Ryanair Limited and Société Airport Marketing Services Limited Case number 17/03565 Source Registry of the Court
Languages French see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5237&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) Date 04 July 1996 Parties Société Fieldworks-Inc v. Société Erim, Société Logic Instrument and Société Add-on Computer Distribution (A.C.D.) Case number 3603/96, 3703/96, 3998/96 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Versailles
Summary On 9 May 1994, A US company (Fieldworks) entered into a distribution agreement with a French company (Logic Instrument), containing an arbitration agreement. Following the termination of the agreement by Fieldworks, the French company initiated summary proceedings before the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise (Commercial Court of Pontoise) on 29 February 1996. On 15 March 1996, Fieldworks commenced arbitration before the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the distribution agreement. In an order issued on 28 March 1996, the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise found that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, rejected various claims of the French company (inter alia, a request for expertise) and granted provisional measures against Fieldworks and third parties. Appealing this decision, Fieldworks argued, inter alia, that the juge des référés (summary proceedings judge) of the Tribunal de commerce de Paris should have declined jurisdiction in accordance with Article II NYC and Article 1458 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal) upheld the order as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise. It held that even though an arbitration agreement requires in principle that domestic courts decline jurisdiction and refer the parties to arbitration, it does not prevent one of the parties from obtaining provisional measures on an urgent basis, which does not require a ruling on the merits of the dispute (falling under the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal), where it is justified by specific and exceptional circumstances. It then held that, in the case at hand, provisional measures were not justified and thus overturned the order issued by the Tribunal de Commerce de Pontoise in this respect. As to Logic Instrument's request for expertise, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled that, given that the dispute is being settled through arbitration, it is for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether to order an expertise. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=146&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) Date 23 January 1991 Parties Société Bomar Oil N.V. v. Entreprise tunisienne d'activités pétrolières (ETAP) Case number 10988/89 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(1) | II(2) | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Versailles
Summary By an exchange of telexes in August 1983, a Tunisian public entity (ETAP) and a company registered in the Netherland Antilles (Bomar Oil) entered into an agreement for the sale of crude oil by ETAP, which referred to "other conditions" belonging to the "standard ETAP contract". A dispute arose and ETAP commenced arbitration in accordance with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreement included in the standard ETAP contract. Bomar objected to jurisdiction by arguing that it had not consented to any arbitration agreement. An award was rendered on 25 January 1985, whereby the arbitral tribunal rejected the objection to jurisdiction. Bomar Oil initiated an action to set aside the award before the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal), arguing that the arbitration agreement, which was not included in the document signed by the parties, but only in a separate document to which reference was made in the main agreement, should be deemed non-existent. The Cour d'appel de Paris dismissed the action, but this decision was then overturned by the Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court) which held that it violated Article II(1) and II(2) NYC to the extent that it did not find that the existence of an arbitration agreement could have been mentioned during the exchange of telexes nor that the parties had regular business relations. The case was then remitted before the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), whereby Bomar Oil contended again that it had not consented to any arbitration agreement and requested that the award be set aside pursuant to Article II NYC. The Cour d'appel de Versailles dismissed Bomar Oil's action to set aside the award. It reasoned that although the NYC applies to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards (Article I NYC), it is also applicable in the context of an action to set aside an award where the validity and existence of the arbitration agreement is challenged (and notably Article II NYC). Pursuant to Article VII NYC, it held that French Courts, where seized upon an action to set aside the award, should not apply the provisions of the NYC when that of French international arbitration law are more favorable with respect to the validity of the arbitration agreement. The Cour d'appel de Versailles then noted that both French law and the NYC require an agreement to be in writing and none exclude the possibility that the arbitration agreement be contained in a document to which reference is made in the main agreement, insofar as it can be demonstrated that the party against which the arbitration agreement is invoked was aware of the arbitration agreement at the time the main agreement was entered into. In the case at hand, the Cour d'appel de Versailles found that Bomar Oil had accepted ETAP's conditions and received the "ETAP standard contract" in a meeting on 22 August 1983. It thus held that Bomar Oil was bound by the arbitration agreement. affirmed by : follows : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=133&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
