France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Court of First Instance of Paris)
Available documents (3)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
France / 04 November 2016 / France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris / Fédération de Russie v. Société Hulley Enterprises Limited / 16/80270
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Court of First Instance of Paris) Date 22 November 1989 Parties Société Acteurs Auteurs Associés (A.A.A.) v. Société Hemdale Film Corporation Case number 10247/89 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(2) Summary On 27 February 1989, an award was rendered in London in favor of Hemdale Film Corporation. The losing party (Acteurs, Auteurs Associés - AAA) sought to have the award declared unenforceable in France on the grounds that it was contrary to international public policy. Hemdale Film Corporation challenged the admissibility of the action by arguing that such action is not provided under the NYC (or allowed under French law) and that Article V NYC subjects the refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards to a prior application for the recognition and enforcement of the said award. As a counterclaim, it requested the enforcement of the award. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) reasoned that Article V NYC sets forth only the situations in which the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused by the "competent authority", but does not define the procedural regime, which shall be determined by the country in which the award is sought to be relied upon in accordance with Article III NYC. It thus held that the NYC cannot be interpreted as excluding such action if it is admissible under the laws of a given country and found that, under French law, such action is inadmissible. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris then rejected the counterclaim, noting that Hemdale Film Corporation should request the recognition and enforcement of the award before the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris in accordance with Articles 1477 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=130&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Court of First Instance of Paris) Date 15 May 1970 Parties Compagnie de Saint-Gobain Pont-à-Mousson v. The Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited Applicable NYC Provisions I | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | VI Summary A French company (Saint Gobain) entered into an agreement with an Indian company (Nangal Fertilizer and Chemicals Private Ltd, whose rights and obligations had been assumed by Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited - F.C.L.I.) for the construction of a plant in India. A dispute arose and an award was rendered on 19 September 1969 in New Delhi in favor of F.C.L.I. In an order issued on 3 December 1969, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. In the meantime, Saint-Gobain initiated an action before the High Court of New Delhi to have the arbitral award declared without legal effect until it had been approved by the aforementioned Court. Saint-Gobain also challenged the enforcement order before the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, arguing that the award had not yet become binding on the parties and that due process had been violated and therefore the enforcement should be refused pursuant to Articles V(1)(b) and V(1)(e) NYC. In the alternative, Saint-Gobain requested an adjournment of the decision on the enforcement of the award pending the proceedings before the High Court of New Delhi in accordance with Article VI NYC. The President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris upheld the enforcement order and dismissed the action. He first reasoned that under Article V(1)(e) NYC, an award is considered as binding when the award had been rendered in a regular fashion and that all the formalities required for arbitral awards have been complied with. In the case at hand, he held that Saint-Gobain had failed to establish that the award was not binding in the country in which it was made. He then rejected Saint-Gobain's argument based on an alleged violation of due process in breach of Article V(1)(b) NYC, while recalling that, pursuant to Article V(1) NYC, the recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes proof of such violation to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought. As to the request for adjournment of the decision on the enforcement of the award pending the proceedings in India, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris considered that Article VI NYC leaves discretion to the enforcement judge to adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award when proceedings to set aside or suspend the award have been made to a competent authority of the country in which the award was made. He concluded that Saint-Gobain failed to establish that the adjournment would be proper. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=108&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original UnavailableAdobe Acrobat PDF
