Generic terms
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Guide
Available documents (250)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Spain / 13 November 2001 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Centrotex S.A. v. Agencia Gestora de Negocios S.A. (AGENSA) / ATS 2115/2001
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 13 November 2001 Parties Centrotex S.A. v. Agencia Gestora de Negocios S.A. (AGENSA) Case number ATS 2115/2001 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) 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=4043&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 02 October 2001 Parties Fortum Engineering OY-o Ltd v. Global Steel Wire S.A. Case number ATS 1173/2001 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4044&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 16 May 2001 Parties Schröder Vogel GmbH & Co. v. Intercot S.A. Case number ATS 2190/2001 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) 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=4046&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 25 April 2001 Parties B**** v. S**** Case number 3Ob75/01b Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3890&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 13 March 2001 Parties Project XJ200 Ltd v. H. Capital S.A. (Portic S.A.) Case number ATS 773/2001 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4048&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 20 February 2001 Parties Consmaremma-Consorzio tra produttori agricoli-Soc. Coop. a r.l. v. Hermanos Escot Madrid S.A. Case number ATS 758/2001 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) 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=4049&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 19 December 2000 Parties General Feeds Incorporated v. Lumar Barcelona S.A. Case number ATS 1677/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4050&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 28 November 2000 Parties Precious Stones Shipping Limited v. Querqus Alimentaria S.L. Case number ATS 1239/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4051&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 31 July 2000 Parties E. Schubert & Sohn GmbH & Co. v. Golden Foods S.A. Case number ATS 2485/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2) 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=4052&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 31 July 2000 Parties Ionian Shipping Line Co. Ltd v. Transhipping S.A. Case number ATS 827/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) 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=4053&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 20 June 2000 Parties S**** v. A****, H****, Andre H****, Stefan S**** Case number 3Ob347/99x Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3891&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 18 April 2000 Parties Agroindustrias Unidas de México, Sociedad Anónima de Capital Variable v. Medicafé S.A. Case number ATS 1418/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) 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=4062&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 11 April 2000 Parties Unión Générale de Cinema S.A. v. X Y Z Desarrollos S.A. Case number ATS 859/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4065&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 28 March 2000 Parties Kil Management A/S v. J. García Carrión S.A. Case number ATS 238/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) 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=4066&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 21 March 2000 Parties Dee Baylis Ltd v. Curtidos Gregori S.A. Case number ATS 687/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) 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=4067&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 08 February 2000 Parties Vinalmar S.A. v. Gaspar Peral y Cía S.L. Case number ATS 16/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4068&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 01 February 2000 Parties Project XJ220 LTD v. D. Federicoa Case number ATS 469/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4070&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 02 September 1999 Parties Salvador Caetano Industria Metalúrgica e Vehículos de Transporte S.A. v. Automoción Industrial S.A. Case number ATS 655/1999 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) 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=4076&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 04 May 1999 Parties Finora Canadá Ltd v. Productos agrícolas Cano S.A. Case number ATS 949/1999 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) 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=4075&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) Date 15 April 1999 Parties R S.A. v. A Ltd. Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de Justice de Genève
Languages English Summary On 5 June 1996, A and R entered into a sales contract providing for arbitration pursuant to the rules of CIETAC of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (the “Chinese Commission for Arbitration” or “CCA”). A dispute arose between the parties and the CCA rendered an award in A’s favor. A sought to enforce the award in Switzerland by providing to the Tribunal de Première Instance of Geneva (Geneva Tribunal of First Instance) a copy of the contract, the original award in Chinese with a complete translation in French, of which the first and the last pages were sworn to be in conformity with the original. The Tribunal de Grande Instance granted enforcement of the award. R appealed and challenged enforcement on the grounds that A had not complied with Article IV NYC. It argued that A had only supplied the Tribunal de Première Instance with a non-certified copy of the main contract (containing the arbitration agreement), the original award in Chinese and a French translation of the award that was certified on the first and last pages only. The Cour de Justice de Genève (Court of Justice of Geneva) dismissed the appeal. It held that pursuant to Article 194 of the Swiss Private International Law, the NYC was applicable to the recognition and enforcement of awards rendered abroad, regardless of whether the State where the award had been rendered was a party to the NYC. The Cour de Justice stated that the formal requirements of Article IV NYC should be construed in a flexible manner. It recalled that the NYC was meant to improve recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, and in particular, the party seeking enforcement only needed to comply with Article IV NYC, after which the burden shifts to the party opposing enforcement to prove a ground for denial of enforcement. The Cour de Justice held that the party seeking enforcement must at least provide the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award. It noted that R had admitted that A had submitted the original copy of the award and that although the translation the first and last pages of the award were certified, these were the most crucial pages since they established the identity of the parties and contained the final decision of the arbitral tribunal. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=931&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 01 December 1998 Parties Lenersan Poortman B.V. v. Salvador Martínez Mari S.L. Case number ATS 968/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4077&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 06 October 1998 Parties Delta Cereales España S.L. v. Barredo Hermanos S.A. Case number ATS 596/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) 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=4078&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 29 September 1998 Parties Compagne Continentale v. Piensos Cuarte S.A. Case number ATS 828/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) 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=4080&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 29 September 1998 Parties ETS Sebtigrains v. Armengol Hermanos S.A. Case number ATS 1436/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(2) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4079&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 08 September 1998 Parties Amper, S.A. v. Sepa Technologies Ltd., Co. Case number ATS 103/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | V | V(2) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4662&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) Date 30 July 1998 Parties N/A Case number 6 Sch 3/98 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | IV | II(2) | IV(1) | V | V(1) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4135&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 07 July 1998 Parties Unión de Cooperativas Agrícolas Epis-Centre v. Aguicersa S.L. Case number ATS 587/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) 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=4024&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 17 February 1998 Parties Union de Cooperativas Agrícolas Epis-Centre v. La Palentina S.A. Case number ATS 1451/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) 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=4023&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) Date 11 December 1997 Parties X v. Y Case number C/20312/1997 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de Justice de Genève
Languages English Summary X, a Swiss company, and Y, a Chinese company, entered into three contracts in 1994 for the sale of Chinese peanuts (the “1994 Contracts”). The general conditions were printed on the reverse side of the first two contracts and included an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in the State of the respondent. The arbitration clause was completed by typing machine and stated “if any, shall be in Beijing, China”. A previous contract had been entered into by the parties in 1993 providing for arbitration at the place of the registered office of the respondent. A dispute arose between the parties. Pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the 1994 Contracts, Y seized the Chinese Commission for Arbitration on 4 July 1995. A month later, Y sought to provisionally attach assets belonging to X in the Netherlands. X brought this matter before the Chinese Commission for Arbitration which held that the Holland Court had jurisdiction to rule on such conservatory measures. On 5 March 1996, the arbitral tribunal rendered an award in Beijing in favor of Y which was not subject to any appeal. On 9 May 1997, Y served X with a debt collection order directing X to pay sums due under the award. X opposed the debt collection order. Y brought a request for final dismissal of the objection to pay (mainlevée) and for enforcement of the arbitral award before the Tribunal de Première instance (First Instance Tribunal). On 17 September 1997, the Tribunal de Première instance, based on the 1994 Contracts, ordered the provisional dismissal of the objection to pay. Both X and Y appealed. X argued that certain amounts due to X should be set-off against the award and, in the alternative, that the award violated the NYC and Swiss public order. The Cour de Justice de Genève (Court of Justice of Geneva) annulled the decision of the Tribunal de Première Instance, ordered the definitive dismissal of the objection to pay, thus granting enforcement of the award. The Cour de Justice de Genève held that pursuant to Article 194 of the Swiss Private International Law (“SPIL”) the NYC was applicable, as Y’s request was based on an arbitral award rendered abroad. The Cour de Justice found that the award was final because the arbitration rules did not provide for an appeal against the award. The Cour de Justice de Genève rejected X’s argument under Article IV(1)(b) NYC that Y had not filed the arbitration agreement contained in the third contract. It noted that X had not objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, nor had it filed the contracts in the arbitration proceedings, which had been made in two copies. It held that the third contract referred to the same general conditions as the first two contracts, and that there, as a consequence, an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under the Chinese Commission for Arbitration existed. Turning to the allegation that enforcement would violate Swiss public policy, the Cour de Justice de Genève held that a violation of Article V(2)(b) NYC could be examined sua ponte by the Court, but the requirements for such a violation would only be satisfied where there was a violation of fundamental principles of Swiss legal order, which was not the case in the matter at hand. It therefore dismissed the argument. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1541&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 26 November 1997 Parties B**** Inc. v. S**** GmbH Case number 3Ob320/97y Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | XIV Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3892&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
