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
Germany / 18 September 1997 / Germany, Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court of Hamburg) / N/A / 305 O 453/96
Country Germany Court Germany, Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court of Hamburg) Date 18 September 1997 Parties N/A Case number 305 O 453/96 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII Source Registry of the Court
Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4072&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 29 May 1996 Parties D**** v. H**** GmbH Case number 3Ob2098/96t 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=3893&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Korea Court Korea, Seoul Civil District Court Date 01 May 1992 Parties Gwangzhou Ocean Shipping Company v. Eagle Merchant Marine Co., Ltd. Case number 91Gahap45511 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source Languages Korean Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6439&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Hong Kong Court Hong Kong, High Court, In the Supreme Court of Hong Kong Date 23 August 1991 Parties Guangdong New Technology Import & Export Corp Jiangmen Branch [China] v. Chiu Shing T/A BC Property & Trading Co [HK] Case number Miscellaneous proceedings No 1625 of 1991 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(d) | V(1)(b) | IV(1) Source [1991] 2 HKC 459 (HC)
Languages English Summary Pursuant to Section 44 of the Arbitration Ordinance (which implements Article V NYC), Plaintiff, Guangdong New Technology Import & export Corp. Jiangmen Branch (“Guangdong”), brought an action to enforce an arbitral award rendered in China. Defendant, Chiu Shing T/A BC Property & Trading Co. (Chiu Shing”), challenged enforcement on the grounds that: (1) Guangdong had not produced a “duly authenticated original award”; (2) Guangdong had not produced a “duly certified copy” of the original arbitration agreement; (3) it (Chiu Shing) received late notice of the arbitral proceedings; and (4) the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the parties agreement. The court found that the original award, accompanied by an affidavit affirming its authenticity was sufficient to meet the requirement set forth in the NYC and the domestic implementing legislation. The court also found that copies of a document containing an arbitration clause — which had been incorporated by reference into the parties’ contract—sufficiently depicted the “original arbitration agreement” required for enforcement of an arbitral award. In response to Chiu Shing’s contention that it received late notice of the arbitiral proceedings, the court pointed out that despite such late notice, Chiu Shing did have an opportunity to present its case to the arbitral tribunal. Finally, the court rejected Chiu Shing’s argument that the tribunal was improperly constituted because the parties had intended the “Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade” to resolve their dispute and the dispute was handled by the “China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission” instead—the court pointed out that the tribunal had clearly indicated in the award that it had recently changed its name from the former to the latter. For these reasons, the court granted leave for the award to be enforced in the same manner as a judgment of the court. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=486&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original UnavailableAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 17 December 1986 Parties K**** Ungarisches Außenhandelsunternehmen für Fabriksanlagen v. M**** Haus und Liegenschaftsverwaltungs GmbH Case number 3Ob32/86 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3900&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 07 October 1986 Parties T.H. Van Huystee B.V. v. Mr. Benedicto Case number ATS 624/1986 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4646&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 07 October 1986 Parties T.H. Van Huystee B.V. v. Mr. Jose Enrique Case number STS 5279/1986 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4645&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 02 October 1986 Parties Recoup Etablissement v. Don Miguel Case number ATS 456/1986 Applicable NYC Provisions 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=3972&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 29 April 1985 Parties Simonsen & Slang A/S v. Delta 2.000 S.A. Case number ATS 295/1985 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(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=3971&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Korea Court Korea, Seoul Civil District Court Date 12 April 1984 Parties Cheil Steamer Co., Ltd. v. Construction Industry Co., Ltd. Case number 83Gahap7051 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6414&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) Date 14 April 1983 Parties C S.A. v. E Corporation Case number 187 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de Justice de Genève
Languages English Summary E Corporation, incorporated in Liberia and represented by an agent based in London, and C, allegedly entered into a charter party by the exchange of telexes dated 30 April and 1 May 1981. The telexes contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in London. The arbitration agreement provided that in case a party did not nominate an arbitrator within seven days after the other party had nominated an arbitrator, the chosen arbitrator would serve as the sole arbitrator as if he had been designated by both parties. C alleged that it had made a payment on demurrage but had apparently never returned a signed version of the contract. A dispute arose between the parties. E terminated the contract and initiated arbitration proceedings by nominating an arbitrator. C failed to nominate an arbitrator and as a result, the arbitrator nominated by E acted as the sole arbitrator. C did not appear at the proceedings. On 19 January 1982, the sole arbitrator rendered an award in favor of E, who then sought to enforce the award in Switzerland. E filed, along with its request for enforcement, the original award and a French translation. C opposed enforcement on the grounds that there was no valid arbitration agreement within the meaning of Articles II(2) NYC and IV(1)(b) NYC. It argued that it should have been served notice by diplomatic channels in order to comply with Swiss public policy. On 20 July 1982, the Tribunal de Première Instance of Geneva (Geneva Tribunal of First Instance) granted enforcement of the award. It held that an arbitration agreement in writing includes an exchange of telexes pursuant to Article II(2) NYC, and that no violation of fundamental principles of public policy could be found as C had the opportunity to nominate an arbitrator but had not done so. C appealed, arguing that the award violated public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC since it had only been notified of the arbitration proceedings by a simple letter. The Cour de Justice de Genève (Court of Justice of Geneva) stated that the Tribunal de Première Instance of Geneva did not examine the substantial validity of the arbitration agreement and remanded the case. The Cour de Justice de Genève held that the NYC governed the issue of enforcement since the award was rendered in London. It considered that the reservation made by Switzerland pursuant to Article I(3) NYC did not apply since Switzerland and the United Kingdom were both signatories to the NYC. Concerning C’s allegation that no valid arbitration agreement existed, the Cour de Justice de Genève held that, notwithstanding the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, the enforcing court could examine the validity of the arbitration agreement pursuant to Articles II(2) NYC and IV(1)(b) NYC. It further considered that if the enforcing Court finds that the arbitration agreement does not conform to Article IV(1)(b), it cannot examine the validity of the award. As the Cour de Justice of Geneva noted, the burden shifts when the enforcing court considers the arbitration agreement to be valid pursuant to Article II(2) NYC: then, the party opposing enforcement bears the burden of proving a ground for non-enforcement under Article V(1)(a) NYC. In the present case, the Cour de Justice de Genève considered that the arbitration agreement contained in the telexes was valid pursuant to Article II(2) NYC. However, it noted that the Tribunal de Première instance had not analyzed C’s arguments that it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=930&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 04 June 1982 Parties V. Tholanders EFTF v. Española Naviera Lucentum, S.A. Case number ATS 3/1982 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4640&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 24 March 1982 Parties Comineo France S.A. v. Soquiber S.L. Case number ATS 479/1982 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(2) | II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) 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=3963&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
