Generic terms
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Guide
Available documents (59)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Malena Mavrakis ; Jessica Viven-Wilksch / Celebrating the 65th Anniversary of the New York Convention at the UNCCA May Seminar 2023 / Kluwer Arbitration Blog - 06/09/2023
Author(s) Malena Mavrakis ; Jessica Viven-Wilksch Source Kluwer Arbitration Blog Subject(s) A. Articles on the 1958 New York Convention Applicable NYC Provisions V(1) | V | I(3) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6881&opac_view=6
Author(s) Akshita Rohatgi Source in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp. 75-89 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions India Applicable NYC Provisions I(3) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6867&opac_view=6
Author(s) Alfred Lewis Source in Arbitration International, 2023, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp. 39-62 Subject(s) A. Articles on the 1958 New York Convention Jurisdictions Russia Applicable NYC Provisions V(2)(a) | III | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(1)(b) | I(3) | I(1) | XIV Worldcat Number Worldcat : 9963158196 
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6857&opac_view=6
Canada / 6 September 2022 / Canada, Federal Court of Canada / Stephanie Difederico and Jameson Edmond Casey v. Amazon.Com, Inc., and others / T-445-20
Country Canada Court Canada, Federal Court of Canada Date 06 September 2022 Parties Stephanie Difederico and Jameson Edmond Casey v. Amazon.Com, Inc., and others Case number T-445-20 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | II | II(1) | II(3) Source 2022 FC 1256 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6826&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
- 01/04/2021
Author(s) Promod Nair ; Bhavya Mohan ; Siddharth Aatreya Source in Gourab Banerji , Promod Nair , et al. (eds), International Arbitration and the Rule of Law: Essays in Honour of Fali Nariman, Permanent Court of Arbitration 2021, pp. 289-313
Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions India Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6761&opac_view=6
Country Canada Court Canada, Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan Date 31 December 2020 Parties Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. TSM Winny AG Ltd. Case number QBG 368 of 2020 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | XII Source 2020 SKQB 348 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6819&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Parket bij de Hoge Raad (Supreme Court Advisory Body) Date 13 December 2019 Parties Koksokhimtrans Ltd. v. Cool Consultancy B.V. Case number 19/02778 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | II | II(2) Source https://www.rechtspraak.nl (official website of the Netherlands judiciary system)
Languages Dutch Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5935&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Date 14 September 2018 Parties Nanko Shipping, Guinea v. Alcoa, Inc., et al. Case number 14-1301 (RMC) Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | III Source http://us-arbitration.shearman.com (Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest website)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5289&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Russia Court Russia, Арбитражный суд Челябинской области (Arbitrazh Court of Chelyabinsk Oblast) Date 01 June 2018 Parties ERG Sales AG v. PAO Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant Case number A76-8501/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | V | X | X(1) Source http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts)
Languages Russian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5042&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 07 May 2018 Parties Union of India v. Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom & Anr Case number CS(OS) 383/2017 & I.A. No. 9460/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5600&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Date 13 June 2017 Parties Sterling Merchant Finance Ltd. v. Republic of Cabo Verde Case number 16-1285 (ESH) Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | III | V | V(1) | V(2) Source http://us-arbitration.shearman.com (Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest website)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4097&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Nigeria Court Nigeria, Federal High Court in Lagos Date 27 June 2016 Parties Augusta Offshore S.p.a v. Seabulk Offshore Operators Nigeria Limited Case number FHC/L/CS/1886/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | III | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4403&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Bulgaria Court Bulgaria, Софийски градски съд (Sofia City Court) Date 12 May 2016 Case number Commercial Case No. 4709/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source https://legalacts.justice.bg (database of Bulgarian judicial acts)
Languages Bulgarian affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5211&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Date 21 July 2015 Parties Belize Social Development Limited v. Government of Belize Case number 14-7002 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) Source online: PACER
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3800&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Date 16 April 2015 Parties Lito Martinez Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & CIE KG Case number 14-30132 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3793&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 23 October 2014 Case number 1036/12.4YRLSB.S1 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Portuguese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6074&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Date 08 August 2014 Parties Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc. Case number 13-05634 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | V Source online: PACER
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3771&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date 24 March 2014 Parties Seed Holdings, Inc. v. Jiffy International AS, et al. Case number 13 Civ. 2284 (JGK); 13 Civ. 2755 (JGK) Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) Source online: PACER
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3767&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Pakistan Court Pakistan, High Court of Sindh Date 14 May 2013 Parties Tariq Ali Durrani v. Atlas Elektronik GmbH and others Case number Suit No. 1226/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) Source Registry of the Court
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6030&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Serbia Court Serbia, Privredni Apelacioni Sud (Commercial Court of Appeal) Date 28 November 2012 Case number 6 Pvz 970/12 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(2) Source Registry of Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3677&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Date 25 May 2012 Parties GSS Group Ltd. (Global Security Seals Group Ltd) v. National Port Authority. Case number 11–7093 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | I(3) Source online: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov (official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Languages English Summary The Appellant, GSS Group Ltd. (“GSS”), obtained an arbitral award against the Appellee, the National Port Authority of Liberia (“National Port Authority”), for breach of a construction contract, which required arbitration in London pursuant to English law. GSS sought to confirm and enforce the award in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to the NYC. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, reasoning that GSS had failed to prove that the National Port Authority was an agent of, and not a sufficiently separate juridical entity from, the Liberian government and that it was not entitled to due process protections under the U.S. Constitution. GSS appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the National Port Authority had lost its juridical separateness and therefore its due process protections under the U.S. Constitution by acting as an agent of the Liberian government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the dismissal, citing the lack of personal jurisdiction over the National Port Authority pursuant to the Due Process Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The Court recognized its subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the NYC as it concerned a foreign arbitral award rendered in a country that was a signatory to the NYC, which satisfied the United States’ reciprocity reservation under Article I(3) NYC. The Court then determined that GSS had waived most of its arguments on appeal by failing to raise them in a timely manner or preserve them for judicial review, except for its contention that foreign state-owned corporations were not entitled to constitutional due process protections. On this latter point, the Court stated that binding precedent was contrary to GSS’s argument. The Court held that governmental instrumentalities that were independent juridical entities from the sovereign would be treated as such and be accorded the same due process protections to which private corporations are entitled under the U.S. Constitution, unless agency or broader equitable principles dictated otherwise. In the present case, because GSS had failed to establish that the National Port Authority was an agent of the Liberian government, or that there were other equitable considerations involved, due process protections applied and precluded the District Court from exercising personal jurisdiction over the National Port Authority. see also :
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(3) / c. Meaning of “Contracting State” / §77
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(1) / b. Awards “not considered as domestic awards in the State where their recognition and enforcement are sought” / §49
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(3) / a.The territorial criterion and the reciprocity reservation / §71
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1203&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Provincial Court of Barcelona) Date 21 May 2012 Parties Euro Herramientas S.A. v. Stanley Ibérica S.L. Case number AAP B 4830/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | II | II(1) | II(2) | II(3) | VII | VII(1) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3990&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Date 16 March 2012 Parties Potenciano L. Aggarao Jr. v. Mol Ship Management Company, LTD.; Nissan Motor Car Carrier Company, Ltd., trading as Nissan Carrier Fleet; World Car Carriers, Incorporated Case number 10–2211 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | I(3) | II(3) | V(2)(b) Source online: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/ (official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit) Languages English Summary The Plaintiff-Appellant, Potenciano Aggarao (“Aggarao”), filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against his employer, Mol Ship Management Company, and its affiliated entities (collectively, “Mol”) alleging, inter alia, negligence pursuant to the Jones Act. The Jones Act provides seamen with a special statutory framework for bringing negligence and related claims against their employers. Mol moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, based on an arbitration agreement in Aggarao’s employment contract which required arbitration in the Philippines under Philippine law. The District Court dismissed Aggarao’s action, holding that Aggarao was bound to arbitrate its claims against all of the defendants, regardless of whether they were signatories to the arbitration agreement or not, as he was equitably estopped from pursuing his claims against non-signatory defendants. Aggarao appealed, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because (i) subsequent contracts entered into by the parties constituted a novation that superseded the contract containing the arbitration agreement, or, at the least, modified the contract to repeal the arbitration clause; (ii) under Section 202 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the NYC applies only to commercial contracts, and Section 1 of the FAA excludes seamen’s employment contracts from the definition of commercial; (iii) the Seaman’s Wage Act entitled Aggarao to access a federal court notwithstanding the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the contractual choice-of-law and choice-of-venue provisions violated public policy as they constituted a prospective waiver of Aggarao’s statutory remedies under U.S. law. Finally, Aggarao argued that it could not be compelled to arbitrate against all of the defendants because some of them were not signatories to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. It also argued that the District Court should have issued a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision that the arbitration agreement was enforceable, but vacated the part of its judgment ordering disposition of the case and remanded for the issuance of a stay pending arbitration and for consideration of Aggarao’s request for a preliminary injunction. First, the Court rejected Aggarao’s argument that the arbitration agreement in his employment contract had been repealed by subsequent contracts entered into by the parties, not containing an arbitration clause. The Court reasoned that the agreements were complimentary, and supplemented, rather than superseded, one another. Second, the Court rejected Aggarao’s argument that Section 1 of the FAA, which exempts employment contracts for seamen from the definition of commerce for purposes of domestic arbitration, also applied to arbitration governed by the NYC, finding that the exemption in Section 1 of Chapter 1 applied only to domestic arbitration, and that Chapter 2 of the FAA, which implements the NYC, did not incorporate the exemption. Third, it held that Chapter 2 of the FAA supplanted in part the Seaman’s Wage Act, requiring a federal court to refer to arbitration seamen wage claims and any other claims subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement. Fourth, the Court held that an arbitration agreement could not be invalidated on public policy grounds at the stage of enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The Court reasoned that the “null and void” defense in Article II NYC, applicable at the stage of enforcement of the arbitration agreement, did not include a public policy defense because such a defense could not be neutrally applied on an international scale. According to the Court, a party may only challenge arbitration on public policy grounds at the time of enforcement of the arbitral award. Thus, to ensure that Aggarao would have an opportunity to challenge the ensuing arbitral award on public policy grounds, the Court stayed judicial proceedings and retained jurisdiction over the matter pending arbitration. Fourth, the Court held that Aggarao was equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate jointly against the signatory and non-signatory defendants where Aggarao had allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract. Finally, the Court of Appeals directed the District Court to consider Aggarao’s request for a preliminary injunction, which would require the defendants to continue to provide maintenance and cure in the U.S. pending arbitration, by applying the “hollow-formality” test. The “hollow-formality” test permits a district court to issue a preliminary injunction in its discretion to maintain the status quo pending arbitration, if failure to do so would alter the circumstances so severely as to render any subsequent arbitral relief meaningless. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1236&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Mexico Court Mexico, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation) Date 29 June 2011 Case number Amparo directo 8/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI Source https://www.scjn.gob.mx (website of the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación
Also attached Tesis Aislada No. 161136 (https://sjf.scjn.gob.mx, website of the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4513&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Serbia Court Serbia, Privredni Apelacioni Sud (Commercial Court of Appeal) Date 16 March 2011 Case number 6Pvž. 215/11 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | I | V | VII | I(3) Source Original decision obtained from the Registry of the Commercial Court of Appeal (Privredni apelacioni sud)
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1701&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
