Generic terms
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Guide
Available documents (145)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Morocco / 06 March 2013 / Morocco, المحكمة التجارية بالدار البيضاء (Commercial Court of Casablanca) / Enerciel Tunisie v. Gemtech and Said Kamra / 323
Country Morocco Court Morocco, المحكمة التجارية بالدار البيضاء (Commercial Court of Casablanca) Date 06 March 2013 Parties Enerciel Tunisie v. Gemtech and Said Kamra Case number 323 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4508&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) Date 29 November 2012 Parties SC Eco Construct S.L. v. Viure AMB Confort S.L. Case number ATSJ CAT 629/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | 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=3986&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) Date 30 May 2012 Parties IMFC Licensing B.V. v. R.C.D. Espanyol de Barcelona S.A.D. Case number ATSJ CAT 272/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | 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=3989&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) Date 29 March 2012 Parties Ms Amazon River I CV v. Eurocondal Shipping S.A. Case number ATSJ CAT 103/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions 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=3993&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) Date 15 March 2012 Parties Starlio Shipping Company Limited v. Eurocondal Shipping S.A. Case number ATSJ CAT 100/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions 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=3994&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) Date 17 November 2011 Parties MK2 S.A. v. Wide Pictures S.L. Case number ATSJ CAT 525/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VI 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=4001&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 10 October 2011 Case number 5A_427/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary A and B concluded a contract for the delivery of goods from A to B. Bank acted as guarantor for B, agreeing to pay the price of goods upon the presentation of certain documents by A. These were presented and payment was made. Subsequently, B entertained doubts as to the authenticity of the documents and alleged that it had not received the agreed goods. B commenced an arbitration before the Syrian Council of State, relying on a pro forma invoice dated 22 February 2001 which provided for arbitration. The Council of State found that A had used a falsified inspection certificate in the documents submitted to the bank and that A did not participate in the proceedings. B’s bank also initiated criminal proceedings against A in France; the French court found there had been no fraud. B applied to the Tribunal of First Instance in Geneva, seeking to freeze A’s assets held by D’s bank in Geneva and enforce the award. In its application it submitted faxed copies of the invoice containing the arbitration agreement. The Tribunal of First Instance found for B; its decision was upheld on appeal. A appealed again. The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed A’s appeal. The Federal Tribunal held that Article IV(1)(b) NYC, which requires the original arbitration agreement to be submitted for an award to be enforceable, should not be interpreted in an excessively formalistic manner. It held that although that the document submitted was not the original invoice but a faxed copy, the authenticity of the document had not been challenged by A. Arguments by A that it had not been notified to participate in the proceedings (pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC) and that enforcement of the award would be contrary to Swiss public policy (Article V(2)(b) NYC) were unsuccessful on the facts. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=572&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Albania Court Albania, Kolegjet e Bashkuara të Gjykatës së Lartë (Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court) Date 01 June 2011 Parties I.C.M.A. S.r.l and AGRI. BEN S.A. v. Ministria e Bujqësisë dhe Ushqimit Case number 6 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(2) Source http://www.qbz.gov.al (website of the Official Gazette of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4740&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο Κύπρου (Supreme Court of Cyprus) Date 30 May 2011 Parties Bristol Business Corporation v. Besuno Limited Case number Civil Appeal No. 321/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6670&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 13 April 2011 Parties D**** OAO v. F**** GmbH Case number 3 Ob 154/10h Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | IV(1)(a) | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.ris.bka.gv.at
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1641&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) Date 09 January 2011 Parties Pusaka Laut PTE Ltd v. CDC Hiacre S.A. Case number ATSJ CAT 555/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | II | II(1) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | 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=4004&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 01 September 2010 Parties D**** v. Franz J**** Case number 3 Ob 122/10b Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1)(b) | IV(1) Source http://www.ris.bka.gv.at
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1642&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Singapore Court Singapore, High Court Date 09 April 2010 Parties Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd) Case number [2010] SGHC 108, Originating Summons No 807 of 2009 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) Source Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4174&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Morocco Court Morocco, Commercial Court of Appeal of Casablanca Date 02 April 2010 Parties Company Croppo Actiona v. Works Company Loutfi Case number 5601/2009/4 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | VIII Source Registry of the court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6626&opac_view=6
Country Slovenia Court Slovenia, Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia) Date 16 December 2009 Case number VSRS Sklep Cpg 2/2009 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(2) | VII Source http://www.sodnapraksa.si (Public information of Slovenia, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4428&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) Date 15 December 2009 Case number I-4 Sch 10/09 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(b) | V(2)(b) | IV(1)(b) Source DIS Summary The Parties' U.S. parent company concluded a sales contract in 2003, which contained an arbitration clause. The Claimant assigned all rights under the contract in 2006. In 2008, the Claimant commenced arbitration before a sole arbitrator. The Defendant participated, but informed the sole arbitrator that it would not attend the hearing due to financial difficulties. The arbitrator rendered an award in 2009 in the Claimant's favor. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf hold that the award was enforceable. It reasoned that the Claimant had supplied documents that complied with the less strict formal conditions of German law for the recognition of a foreign arbitral award, which applied in virtue of the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC. The Court reasoned that an award was valid and final under the applicable American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules, and that this condition must be examined by the Court of its own initiative, pursuant to German law. The fact that the Defendant did not attend the hearing did not violate due process or public policy, since it had expressly informed the arbitrator that it would not attend and was fully informed of the proceedings. The applicable AAA Rules provided that an award did not have to contain reasons, and this possibility does not violate basic principles of German law. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=306&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Provincial Court of Burgos) Date 27 April 2009 Parties Abonos y Cereales S.L. v. Granit Negoce S.A. Case number AAP BU 21/2009 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | 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=4012&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Audiencia Provincial de Madrid (Provincial Court of Madrid) Date 01 April 2009 Parties Cadena de Tiendas Venezolanas, Cativen S.A. v. GMR Asesores S.L. e Inmomercado C.A. Case number AAP M 5039/2009 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(3) | II | II(1) | II(3) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | 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=4013&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 03 September 2008 Parties O**** Limited, M**** Corp. v. C**** Limited Case number 3Ob35/08f Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | VII | VII(1) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3881&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Morocco Court Morocco, Commercial Court of Appeal of Casablanca Date 26 August 2008 Parties Scientific Production Company for Commerce Natane v. Rony Brice’s Company Case number 1795-2008-4 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6612&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 23 October 2007 Parties K**** v. F**** AG Case number 3Ob141/07t Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3882&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λάρνακας (District Court of Larnaca) Date 19 October 2007 Parties Bristol Business Corporation v. Besuno Limited Case number Application No. 1/07 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6669&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Korea Court Korea, Seoul Western District Court Date 26 July 2007 Parties Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. KTC Korea Co. Ltd. Case number 2006Na8058 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Korean reverses : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6423&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) Date 09 May 2007 Parties Bunge S.A. of Geneva Switzerland v. Shenzhen Light Industrial Products Bonded Trade Co. Case number [2006] 民四他字第47号 / [2006] MinSiTaZi No. 47 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1)(b) Source Guide on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 112-123 (People's Court Press, Vol. 1, 2007)
Languages English Summary On 6 May 2003, Bunge S.A. of Geneva Switzerland (“Bunge”) and Shenzhen Light Industrial Products Bonded Trade Co. (“Shenzhen Light”) entered into a contract of affreightment in which Shenzhen Light was to deliver goods from China to Brazil. The parties’ agreement provided that any disputes were to be submitted to arbitration in London applying English law before three arbitrators from the shipping industry. Each party was to appoint one arbitrator and the third was to be appointed jointly by the two party-appointed arbitrators. A dispute arose between the parties and arbitration was initiated. Bunge appointed an arbitrator but Shenzhen Light refused to appoint one. In accordance with English law, Bunge’s party-appointed arbitrator became the sole arbitrator in the dispute. On 25 November 2004, an award was rendered in favour of Bunge, who then applied for recognition and enforcement before the Guangzhou Maritime Court (广州海事法院). Shenzhen Light challenged the application on the grounds that (i) Bunge had not authenticated the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof in accordance with Article IV(1)(b) NYC, (ii) it did not receive proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator, (iii) the composition of the arbitral tribunal, including its number, qualification and seat was contrary to the arbitration agreement and (iv) the application for enforcement exceeded the required time limit under Chinese law. The Guangzhou Maritime Court opined that the award should be recognised but not enforced. In particular, the court dismissed three of Shenzhen Light’s objections, including its argument that the award should be refused recognition and enforcement under Article IV(1)(b) NYC, but sustained its challenge that the filing of the application for enforcement had exceeded the six-month time limit under Chinese law. The court reported its opinion to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court (广东省高级人民法院) for review. The Guangdong Higher People’s Court confirmed that the arbitral award should be recognised but not enforced. In particular, the court sustained Shenzhen Light’s objection that the application for enforcement had exceeded the six-month time limit under Chinese law. The Guangdong Higher People’s Court reported its opinion to the Supreme People’s Court (最高人民法院) for review in accordance with the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Adjudication of the Relevant Issues About Foreign-related Arbitration and Foreign Arbitral Matters by the People’s Court. The Supreme People’s Court confirmed that the arbitral award should be recognised. As for the enforcement of the award, the court found, with reference to Article IV NYC, that the determination of whether an application for enforcement was filed within the required six-month time limit under Chinese law was calculated from the time the applicant received the duly authenticated original award or duly certified copy thereof. The court directed the Guangdong Higher People’s Court to identify the relevant date and make a decision on the timeliness of the application for enforcement on that basis according to Chinese law. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1497&opac_view=6
Country Argentina Court Argentina, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil y Comercial Federal, Sala II (National Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Federal Matters, Division II) Date 08 May 2007 Parties Armada Holland BV Schiedam Denmark v. Inter Fruit S.A. Case number 7229/2001 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | II(1) | II(2) | IV(1)(b) | IV(1) Source Registry of the Court
reversed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1685&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas de Gran Canarias (Provincial Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canarias) Date 26 March 2007 Parties Mr. Fermín and Mr. Pedro Antonio v. Mr. Luis Manuel and Ms. Laura Case number AAP GC 434/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(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=4690&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Kammergericht Date 10 August 2006 Case number 20 Sch 07/04 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | IV | III | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | VII(1) | V(1)(a) | IV(2) | IV(1)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Kammergericht
Languages English Summary In relation to a joint venture contract for the exploration of Lithuanian oil fields, a tribunal constituted under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), seated in Copenhagen, ordered the Respondents, a foreign state and a company incorporated under the laws of that state, to pay damages to the Applicant as joint and several debtors. The foreign state issued a resolution stating that it did not consider it appropriate to seek annulment of the award at the seat of the arbitration. The Applicant applied for enforcement of the award in Germany. The foreign state opposed enforcement before the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court Berlin) arguing that (i) it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, (ii) the arbitration agreement did not encompass disputes regarding the oil fields, (iii) this was a dispute about natural resources which were in the public law domain and thus not susceptible to arbitration, and (iv) that it had not been fully granted the right to be heard. The foreign state further argued that its resolution did not constitute a waiver of the right to seek an annulment of the award and that the time limit for seeking annulment had not yet passed. In addition, it sought that the arbitral tribunal’s factual findings be fully reassessed by the Kammergericht. The Respondent company opposed enforcement of the award, stating that (i) the Applicant had not fulfilled the formal requirements for enforcement as it had not submitted a notarized translation of the arbitration agreement, (ii) that the application for enforcement would constitute an abuse of law as the Applicant was not willing to comply with the award issued for the counter claims raised by the Respondent company, and (iii) that the recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to German public policy. It further argued that it did not have any attachable assets in Germany due to which the Kammergericht did not have jurisdiction over it. The Kammergericht declared the award enforceable against the Respondent state but not the company. It found that the application met the formal requirements for a declaration of enforceability and that pursuant to Section 1064 paras 1 and 3 of the German Civil Procedure Code the Applicant need only provide a certified copy of the arbitral award. It held that while Articles IV(1)(b) and IV(2) NYC required submission of the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and a certified translation of the award, under the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC, the less stringent requirements of German law would be applicable. The Kammergericht noted that this interpretation was also in line with Article III NYC according to which the recognition of foreign awards could not be subject to substantially more onerous conditions than the recognition of domestic awards. On the merits, the Kammergericht concluded that the Respondent state was precluded from raising objections since it had previously, by way of its resolution, abstained from seeking annulment of the award at the arbitral seat, even though the award could only be set aside at the seat. According to the Kammergericht, for the Respondent state to object to enforcement now was in contradiction to its previous stance and against good faith. With respect to the Respondent company, the Kammergericht refused to declare the award enforceable, finding that the application was inadmissible since the company did not own assets in Germany. The Kammergericht concluded that its finding of inadmissibility was not barred under the NYC as it did not involve a decision on the merits of the dispute and the NYC did not address general admissibility requirements in addition to the specific requirements stipulated in the NYC. reversed by : see also :
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §38
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / a. Documents specified under article IV(1) / §17
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / b. Documents specified under article IV(2) / §20
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / A. The requirement that the applicant provide the arbitration agreement 'referred to in article II' / §66
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §37
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1318&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Singapore Court Singapore, High Court Date 10 May 2006 Parties Aloe Vera of America, Inc v. Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and Another Case number [2006] 3 SLR 174, [2006] SGHC 104 78, OS 762/2004, RA 327/2005 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4171&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 31 May 2005 Parties Pueblo Film Distribution Hungary KFT v. Laurenfilm S.A. Case number ATS 6700/2005 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | 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=4021&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
