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
Spain / 18 April 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Agroindustrias Unidas de México, Sociedad Anónima de Capital Variable v. Medicafé S.A. / ATS 1418/2000
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 Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Schleswig Date 30 March 2000 Case number 16 SchH 05/99 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | II | V(2)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | II(2) Source DIS Languages English Summary The Defendant purchased goods from the Claimant since 1995. In 1997, the Defendant placed an order and the Claimant confirmed the sale by telefax using its standard form which contained a reference to the General Conditions of Sale printed on the reverse side which on its face contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration at the Court of Arbitration of the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce. The Claimant only sent the front side of the contract form which the Defendant signed and faxed back to the Claimant. The dispute arose and the Claimant commenced arbitration proceedings. The Court rendered a preliminary award in the Claimant’s favor and thereafter a final award which the Claimant sought to enforce before German Courts. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Schleswig enforced the award, holding that both the requirements of Article IV NYC and Sections 1061 and 1064 of the ZPO (Zivilprozessordnung) had been met. The Court deemed that the contract form signed by the Defendant and faxed to the Claimant fulfilled the formal requirements of Article II(2) NYC. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s objection based on Article V(1)(a) NYC, by stating that Article V(1)(a) presupposes a formally valid arbitration agreement which the Claimant has the burden to prove. The Court stated that the substantive rule in Article II(2) prevails over any national law “be it more or less strict as to the formal requirements”. Moreover, the Court stressed that the Defendant cannot argue that it was not aware of the arbitration clause printed on the reverse side as the Parties were in ongoing business relationship pursuant to which the Claimant would always use the same form for the conclusion of its contracts with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Court stressed that even if there were no formally valid arbitration agreement, this defect would have been cured since the Defendant failed to object the tribunal’s jurisdiction during the arbitration and thus waived its right to object at a later stage of the proceedings. The Court specified that the prohibition of contradictory behavior is a legal principle that needs to be taken into account within Article II(2). The Court found that the fact that the Defendant did not initiate annulment proceedings before Hungarian Courts did not preclude it from resisting enforcement under Article V(1)(a) . The Court further found that it was not bound by the arbitral tribunal’s finding on jurisdiction and found that under the applicable Hungarian provision, the formal defect was cured when the Defendant entered into the merits of the arbitration claim without objecting the substantive validity of the arbitration agreement. Finally, the Court dismissed alleged violation under Article V(1)(d) NYC, based on the fact that the procedural language of the arbitration was Hungarian, since the Defendant had a Hungarian counsel, and found the award was not contrary to German public order pursuant to Article V(2)(b). see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=423&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 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 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 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 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 United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Date 23 October 1989 Parties Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould Inc., Gould Marketing, Inc., Hoffman Export Corporation, and Gould International, Inc. Case number 88-5879 / 88-5881 Applicable NYC Provisions II | I | IV | V | II(1) | I(1) | IV(1)(b) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary The Ministry of War of the Imperial Government of Iran and Hoffman Electric Corporation, which later merged with Gould Marketing (“Gould”), entered into two agreements. Progress payments and performance under the contract were disrupted due to the Iranian revolution. Gould submitted claims before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal seeking damages from Iran for breach of contract. The Tribunal issued a monetary award in favor of Iran. Iran sought confirmation and enforcement of the award in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Gould argued that the District Court improperly exercised jurisdiction under Section 203 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and opposed the application on two grounds. First, it argued that there was no “agreement in writing” under Articles II and IV NYC. Second, it argued that the award did not fall within the ambit of the NYC because of an implied requirement under Article V(1)(e) NYC that the NYC applied only to awards made in accordance with national law, as opposed to international law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Gould’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Article 203 of the FAA. The Court first found that the award was subject to the NYC, as the requirements of Section 202 of the FAA had been fulfilled (namely, that (i) the award arose out of a legal relationship which was (ii) commercial in nature and (iii) was not entirely domestic in scope). The Court held that the award also satisfied the requirements of Article I(1) NYC and was “made in the territory of another Contracting State” by a “permanent arbitral bod[y]”. The Court found that Article IV(1)(b) NYC, which requires a party to submit "[t]he original agreement referred to in article II ... or a duly certified copy thereof”, and Article II(1) NYC, which requires that “each Contracting State shall recognize an agreement in writing […]”, both indicated that the award referred to in Section 203 of the FAA must emanate from a written arbitration agreement. The Court then explained that the Claims Settlement Declaration, which established the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal as a mechanism for binding third-party arbitration, satisfied “the agreement in writing” standard under the NYC. The Court further found that that an award need not be made “under a national law” for a court to entertain jurisdiction over its enforcement pursuant to the NYC. The Court concluded that if the parties choose not to have their arbitration governed by a “national law,” then the losing party could simply not avail itself of certain of the defenses listed in Article V(1)(a) and (e) NYC. see also :
- United States / 30 June 1992 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit / Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould, Inc.; Gould Marketing, Inc.; Hoffman Export Corporation; Gould International, Inc. / 91-55135 / 91-55136
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(1) / b. Awards “not considered as domestic awards in the State where their recognition and enforcement are sought” / §60
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(1) / b. Awards “not considered as domestic awards in the State where their recognition and enforcement are sought” / §63
- I / ARTICLE I(2) / §68
- II / 2. ANALYSIS (II) / ARTICLE II(2) / a. An exchange / §49
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1153&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe 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 United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware Date 08 May 1986 Parties Al Haddad Bros. Enterprises Inc., (U.S.) v. M/S AGAPI and Diakan Love, S.A. Case number 8292 CMW Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(d) | IV(1)(b) Source 635 F. Supp. 205
Languages English Summary Al Haddad Brothers Enterprises (“Al Haddad”) and Diakan Love, S.A. (“Diakan”) entered into a charter party providing for arbitration in London. Al Haddad filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and Diakan moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. The District Court granted the motion, and Diakan later initiated arbitration in London. In 1983, a sole arbitrator rendered an award in favor of Diakan. Subsequently Al Haddad filed a motion before the District Court to vacate the stay order, arguing that it never agreed to arbitration. The Court denied the motion. Diakan then sought a summary judgment on a counterclaim based on the arbitration award before the same court. Al Haddad argued that the award had been improperly procured because: (i) it was determined by a sole arbitrator, appointed by one of the parties, and therefore the enforcement should be refused pursuant to Article V(1)(d) NYC, and (ii) that Diakan had failed to comply with the formal requirements under Article IV(1)(b) NYC. The Court enforced the award under the NYC. In dismissing the first argument, the Court noted that the NYC allows recognition of an award which, although not in accordance with the parties' agreement, complied with the laws of the country where the arbitration occurred. In dismissing the second argument, the Court held that the purpose of Article IV(1)(b) NYC is to prove the existence of the agreement to arbitrate. Although Diakan had not produced the agreement before the Court during the proceedings, the Court held that it did produce it on several prior instances, thereby complying with the requirements of Article IV(1)(b) NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=846&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe 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 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 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
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio Date 09 June 1981 Parties Fertilizer Corp. of India (India) v. IDI Mgmt. Inc. (US) Case number C-1-79-570 Applicable NYC Provisions VI | V | IV | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(c) | IV(1)(b) Source 517 F. Supp. 948 Languages English Summary Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI), a wholly-owned entity of the Government of India, and IDI Management (“IDI”), the successor in interest to Chemical & Industrial Corp. (“C & I”), an Ohio Corporation, entered into a contract for construction of a nitrophosphate plant in India. The contract provided for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”). An award was rendered in favor of FCI, who petitioned an Indian Court for confirmation of the award. IDI applied to another Indian Court to have the award set aside. Both proceedings before Indian courts were pending when FCI sought enforcement in the United States. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted an adjournment. The Court noted that it had been unable to discover any standard on which a decision to adjourn should be based, other than to ascertain whether an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award had been brought before a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made. In the present case, the Court ascertained that the threshold elements of Article VI NYC were fulfilled and that it was appropriate to adjourn the proceeding until Indian courts rendered a decision. In rejecting other defenses under the NYC, the Court found that: (i) the Petitioner had fulfilled the formal conditions of Article IV(1)(b) NYC, (ii) there was no public policy ground on which to refuse enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC, given that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied on this basis only where enforcement would violate “the forum states’ most basic notions of morality and justice”, (iii) there was no violation of Article V(1)(c) NYC, which followed Section 10(d) of the Federal Arbitration Act since the arbitrators did not exceed their authority in granting consequential damages under the award, and (iv) Article V(1)(e) the NYC did not prevent enforcement because the award was final and binding, as no further recourse was available in arbitration. see also :
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. The absence of a standard / §25
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / c. Whether there are any prevailing factors to be considered by courts / §38
- 1. ANALYSIS (XIV) / §4
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(3) / a. Meaning of “legal relationships considered as commercial under the national law of the State making such declaration” / §86
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=845&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
