Generic terms
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Guide
Available documents (107)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Netherlands / 17 July 2020 / Netherlands, Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal of The Hague) / Offshore Support Vessels 12 Pte. Ltd. and Vroon Offshore Services Pte. Ltd. v. Inrada International Subsea Projects B.V. / 200.276.881/01
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal of The Hague) Date 17 July 2020 Parties Offshore Support Vessels 12 Pte. Ltd. and Vroon Offshore Services Pte. Ltd. v. Inrada International Subsea Projects B.V. Case number 200.276.881/01 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(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=6447&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 05 May 2020 Parties Smagin v. Kalken Holdings Limited and Yegiazaryan Case number General Application No. 601/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6711&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λεμεσού (District Court of Limassol) Date 04 October 2019 Parties Ομοσπονδιακή Κρατική Ενιαία Εταιρία “Πανρωσική Τηλεοπτική Ραδιοφωνική Εταιρία” (Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Pan-Russian Television and Radio Company”) v. Trevano Pictures Limited Case number Foreign General Application No. 2/19 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6654&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Date 24 September 2019 Parties Waleed Al-Qarqani, et al. v. Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Case number C 18-03297 JSW Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) Source online: PACER
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5691&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal of The Hague) Date 10 September 2019 Parties Leidos Incorporated v. Helleense Republiek (Griekenland) Case number 200.248.376/01 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI 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=5631&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal of The Hague) Date 16 July 2019 Parties Vantage Deepwater Company and Vantage Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Petrobras America Inc., Petrobras Venezuela Investments & Services B.V. and Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Case number 200.249.688/01 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI 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=5509&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Ukraine Court Ukraine, Верховний Суд (Supreme Court) Date 17 April 2019 Parties Moston Properties Limited v. PJSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannia” Case number 761/41709/17 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://reyestr.court.gov.ua (website of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions)
Languages Ukrainian affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5776&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λεμεσού (District Court of Limassol) Date 30 January 2019 Parties Suek AG v. Larcher Trading Limited Case number Foreign Decision No. 5/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6710&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Albania Court Albania, Gjykata e Apelit Tirane (Court of Appeal of Tirana) Date 10 January 2019 Parties Galenika A.D. v. Jona Farma Sh.p.k Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(2) Source http://www.gjykata.gov.al (website of the Courts of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5730&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 21 December 2018 Parties Palladium Holdings Limited Liability v. Phoenix Pharmacy Limited Case number Primary Application 64/18 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6701&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida Date 08 August 2018 Parties Esther Ventura de Rendon and Juan Maria Rendon Gutierrez v. Viviane Ventura and Michael D. Ventura Case number 1:17-CV-24380-MORENO/LOUIS Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source online: PACER
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5292&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο (District Court) Date 25 July 2018 Parties CVP Limited v. Beddington Holding Limited Case number Foreign Application No. 15/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6637&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λεμεσού (District Court of Limassol) Date 18 July 2018 Parties Great Station Properties S.A. and Inter Growth Investments Limited v. UMS Holding Limited and others Case number Primary Application No. 2/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6663&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 30 April 2018 Parties Joint Stock Company “The State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine” v. Rabiturna Limited Case number General Application No. 87/17 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6664&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal of The Hague) Date 17 April 2018 Parties Dunav Re A.D.O. Beograd v. Dutch Marine Insurance B.V. Case number 200.223.489/01 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source https://www.rechtspraak.nl (official website of the Netherlands judiciary system)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4631&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Netherlands Court Netherlands, Rechtbank Noord-Holland (District Court of North Holland) Date 28 November 2017 Parties HMH A/S v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij TVM U.A. Case number C/19/120001 / HA RK 17-32 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source https://www.rechtspraak.nl (official website of the Netherlands judiciary system)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4503&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Uruguay Court Uruguay, Suprema Corte de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 09 October 2017 Parties Brittania S.A.S. v. Tonisol S.A. Case number 843/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V Source http://bjn.poderjudicial.gub.uy (website of the national public case law database)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5839&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas Houston Division Date 02 October 2017 Parties OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp., et al. Case number H-09-891 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | 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)(b) Source http://us-arbitration.shearman.com (Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest website)
affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4559&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Peru Court Peru, Segunda Sala Civil con Subespecialidad Comercial de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Second Civil Chamber specialized in Commercial Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima) Date 03 July 2017 Parties D.P. Trade S.A. v. Vemaser Perù S.A.C. Case number Expediente No. 00310-2016-0-1817-SP-CO-02 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5642&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 22 February 2017 Parties Olive Mine Action Limited v. Hera AG Ambiental S.L. Case number ATSJ CAT 55/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(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=3905&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λεμεσού (District Court of Limassol) Date 17 February 2017 Parties Magot Incorporation Limited v. Vebeca Holdings Limited and Nabi Kayumovich Shadiev Case number General Application No. 8/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6653&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (High Court of Justice of Madrid) Date 14 February 2017 Parties Instituto Dominicano de Aviación Civil v. Geci España S.A. Case number ATSJ M 136/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions 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=3906&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (High Court of Justice of Madrid) Date 28 September 2016 Parties Orange Middle East and Africa S.A. v. República de Guinea Ecuatorial Case number ATSJ M 424/2016 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | 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=3910&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Date 27 September 2016 Parties Africard Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Niger Case number 16-00196 (ABJ) Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(2) Source online: PACER
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3730&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 29 June 2016 Parties Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “Bank of Moscow” v. Poinsetter Investments Ltd Case number General Application No. 11/2016 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6639&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λεμεσού (District Court of Limassol) Date 28 June 2016 Parties MNV Zrt. (“Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezelo Zartkoruen mukodo Reszvenytarsasag”) ν. Gratio Holdings Ltd Case number Application No. 325/15 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6655&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 24 June 2016 Parties HTM LLC v. Fomento de Catalizadores Foca S.A.S. Case number 11001-02-03-000-2014-02243-00 Applicable NYC Provisions 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 http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4408&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Ukraine Court Ukraine, Ленінський районний суд м. Харкова (Leninskyi District Court of Kharkiv) Date 14 June 2016 Parties PJSC “Chelyabinsk Metallurgic Combine” v. Ukrinvest LLC Case number 642/3530/16-ц Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source http://reyestr.court.gov.ua (website of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions)
Languages Ukrainian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4815&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 19 May 2016 Parties Premiere Entertainement Group LLC v. Savor Ediciones S.A. Case number ATSJ CAT 192/2016 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | II | 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=3911&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 18 February 2016 Parties Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “Bank of Moscow” v. Bitonic Ltd Case number General Application No. 424/2015 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6645&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 18 February 2016 Parties Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “Bank of Moscow” v. Tiniotic Investments Ltd Case number General Application No. 580/2014 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6638&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 17 February 2016 Parties K**** Ltd v. S**** GmbH, H**** Case number 3Ob208/15g Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3879&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 04 February 2016 Parties A. SA v. B. Ltd Case number 5A_441/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | VII | VII(1) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3698&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 09 December 2015 Parties Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “Bank of Moscow” v. Histerio Ltd Case number General Application No. 685/2014 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6650&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 09 December 2015 Parties Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “Bank of Moscow” v. Maremio Investments Ltd Case number General Application No. 335/2014 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6647&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 09 December 2015 Parties Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “Bank of Moscow” v. Mreyton Investments Ltd Case number General Application No. 341/2014 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6648&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 09 December 2015 Parties Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “Bank of Moscow” v. Right Path Ltd Case number General Application No. 58/2015 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(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6649&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) Date 16 October 2015 Parties Monsieur A v. B Case number C/18035/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source http://justice.geneve.ch (material licensed for reuse under the License Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Suisse)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3697&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 06 August 2015 Parties UAB Marto v. Comarci Limited Case number Application No. 1473/12 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(2) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6693&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Albania Court Albania, Gjykata e Apelit Tirane (Court of Appeal of Tirana) Date 24 July 2015 Parties J&P Avax S.A. v. Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(2) Source http://www.gjykata.gov.al (website of the Courts of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5728&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 24 June 2015 Parties Ukrainian Vodka Company “Nemiroff” v. Nemiroff International Limited Case number General Application No. 543/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6691&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (High Court of Justice of Madrid) Date 23 June 2015 Parties Turen Enerji Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. Essentium Grupo S.L. Case number ATSJ M 369/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions 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=3954&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 14 May 2015 Parties Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Arsanovia Limited Case number General Application No. 322/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6657&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 07 January 2015 Parties Bimecks Lon v. Celesa Celulosa de Levante S.A. Case number ATSJ CAT 15/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | 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=3960&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 江苏省苏州市中级人民法院 (Jiangsu, Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court) Date 18 December 2014 Parties 金属进出口有限公司 (Metall Impex GmbH) v. 江苏沙钢三中国际贸易有限公司 Case number (2014) 苏中商外仲审字第00001号 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://wenshu.court.gov.cn (China Judgements Online)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4370&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (High Court of Justice of Madrid) Date 17 December 2014 Parties BBC Project Chartering GmbH & KG v. Hijos de Justo M Estellez S.A. Case number ATSJ M 116/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions II | 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=3962&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Albania Court Albania, Gjykata e Lartë (Supreme Court) Date 27 November 2014 Parties Rai Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. v. ALBtelecom Sh.a. Case number 623 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) Source http://www.gjykataelarte.gov.al (website of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5718&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 19 September 2014 Parties Hochtief Solutions AG v. Equip Tècnic Santandreu S.A. Case number ATSJ CAT 307/2014 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=3969&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Albania Court Albania, Gjykata e Lartë (Supreme Court) Date 24 April 2014 Parties S4E Group GmbH v. Korporata Elektroenergjitike Shqiptare (KESH) Case number 175 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.gjykataelarte.gov.al (website of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5717&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Albania Court Albania, Gjykata e Lartë (Supreme Court) Date 24 April 2014 Parties S4E Group GmbH v. Korporata Elektroenergjitike Shqiptare (KESH) Case number 175 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.gjykataelarte.gov.al (website of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5716&opac_view=6
Country Albania Court Albania, Gjykata e Lartë (Supreme Court) Date 13 February 2014 Parties Italstrade IS S.r.l. v. Republic of Albania Case number 45 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(2) Source http://www.gjykataelarte.gov.al (website of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5715&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country China Court China, 湖北省荆门市中级人民法院 (Hubei, Jingmen Intermediate People’s Court) Date 20 January 2014 Parties 翱兰国际有限公司 (Olam International Limited) v. 京山伟嘉纺织企业有限公司 Case number (2013)鄂荆门民三初字第00019号 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) Source http://wenshu.court.gov.cn (China Judgements Online)
Languages Chinese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6481&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 18 December 2013 Parties Arsanovia Limited v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings Case number General Application No. 706/13 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6656&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 17 July 2013 Case number Commercial Case No. 8920/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) Source https://legalacts.justice.bg (database of Bulgarian judicial acts)
Languages Bulgarian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5192&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Πάφου (District Court of Paphos) Date 22 March 2013 Parties OOO Syntez v. Systcom Ltd Case number General Application No. 2/10 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6689&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) Date 22 March 2013 Parties A v. B Case number C/11886/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://justice.geneve.ch (material licensed for reuse under the License Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Suisse)
affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3687&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Bundesgericht Date 02 July 2012 Case number 5A_754/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary The parties entered into an exclusive distribution and licensing agreement, which provided for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) by a sole arbitrator in London. A dispute arose and the licensor initiated arbitration proceedings. The sole arbitrator rendered an award prohibiting the licensee from further using certain trademarks belonging to the licensor, while at the same time ordering the licensor to make certain payments to the licensee, including payments for its arbitration costs. The licensee sought leave to enforce its award from the Bezirksgericht (Regional Court) Höfe, which essentially granted the request. The licensor appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Kantonsgericht Schyz (Cantonal Court) Schwyz, and subsequently to the Bundesgericht (Swiss Federal Tribunal). The licensor contented that the licensee’s submission of only a partial translation of the English arbitral award into German violated Article IV(2) NYC, which, it argued, mandatorily required the submission of a German translation of the full text of the arbitral award which was sought to be enforced, regardless of whether the court was capable of understanding the award in the English. It also argued that recognition and enforcement of the award would violate Swiss public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC since the arbitral award ordered it to bear the full costs of the arbitration. The Bundesgericht dismissed the licensor’s appeal, upholding the decision granting leave to enforce the award. The Bundesgericht stated that there were differing views on the interpretation of Article IV(1) NYC both in academia and in court practice, and found that under Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the provision needed to be interpreted with a view to good faith, in conformity with its common meaning and in the light of its object and purpose. The Bundesgericht stated that the purpose of the NYC was to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, which required the enforcement-friendly interpretation of its norms. Moreover, the Bundesgericht found that Article IV(2) NYC served the function of enabling the enforcement court to evaluate possible grounds to refuse enforcement under Article V NYC based on a version of the arbitral award in a language that it could understand. The Bundesgericht further recalled that its prior case law indicated that form requirements under Article IV NYC were not to be applied restrictively. It concluded that it would be purely formalistic to require a full translation of the award in the present case, given that the licensee had provided a translation of the award’s dispositive section and of the section on costs that was disputed between the parties and which could have formed the basis of a possible defense under Article V NYC. In addition, the Bundesgericht found that Swiss courts nowadays normally do not depend on a translation in the case of English-language arbitral awards, so that the non-provision of a full translation did not endanger the purpose of Article IV(2) NYC. The Bundesgericht thus concluded that based on a flexible, pragmatic and non-formalistic interpretation of Article IV(2) NYC, the provision of only a partial translation of the arbitral award was sufficient, and that a more restrictive interpretation would run counter to the recognition and enforcement friendly spirit and objective of the NYC. The Bundesgericht also noted that the licensor had not claimed that it required a translation of the full award to safeguard its own legal rights. It also held that since it had interpreted Article IV(2) NYC as not requiring a translation of the entire award, it did not need to decide whether the same result could have been reached by application of more lenient requirements under Swiss domestic law in accordance with Article VII(1) NYC. As regards the licensor’s argument that the recognition and enforcement of the award would violate Swiss public policy, the Bundesgericht held that it did not need to address this defense since the licensor had in this regard simply resubmitted the same arguments that it had previously submitted to the Kantonsgericht, without addressing the Kantonsgericht’s reasoning for why the enforcement of the cost award did not violate Swiss public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1427&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe 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 Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας (District Court of Nicosia) Date 02 May 2012 Parties Kismetia Ltd v. Lupusco Volga Farming Ltd and Gunnar Nilsson Case number Application No. 1639/11 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6700&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 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 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 Albania Court Albania, Gjykata e Apelit Tirane (Court of Appeal of Tirana) Date 14 December 2010 Parties Rohde Nielsen A/S v. Ministry of Transport Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(2) Source http://www.gjykata.gov.al (website of the Courts of the Republic of Albania)
Languages Albanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5727&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino Date 09 December 2010 Case number 14.2010.98 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source www.sentenze.ti.ch (website of the Canton of Ticino), published with the authorization of the competent authorities
Languages English Summary An award was rendered in Italy and was declared enforceable in Italy by the Tribunale Ordinario. Y initiated an action before the Corte d’Appello (Court of Appeal) to have the award set aside. Meanwhile, X obtained a payment order against Y’s assets in Switzerland from an Ufficio d’esecuzione. Y raised an objection (opposizione) against the payment order and X requested dismissal of the objection (rigetto definitivo) before the Pretore (First Instance Court). Y argued, inter alia, that the award had not yet become binding on the parties because the action to set aside the award was still pending in Italy. The Pretore dismissed Y’s objection, holding that the Corte d’Appello in Italy had not suspended the enforceability of the award. Y appealed the decision. The Camera di Esecuzione e Fallimenti del Tribunale d’Appello (Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal), dismissed the appeal, thereby dismissing the objection to the payment order and allowing the enforcement of the award to proceed. The Tribunale d’Appello observed that pursuant to Article 194 of the Federal Act on Private International Law, the NYC is applicable to the enforcement and recognition of foreign awards. It held that X had complied with the provisions of Article IV(1) NYC by providing the original arbitration agreement and a certified copy of the award. It also noted that Article V(1)(e) did not require that the award be declared enforceable in the country in which it was made in order to be recognized and enforced abroad, unless such was required by the law of the country where it was rendered. The Tribunale d’Appello found that Italian law did not set such a requirement and that thus the award had become binding on the parties. It also observed that the Corte d’Appello in Italy had not suspended the enforceability of the award pursuant to Article VI NYC. Finally, the Tribunale d’Appello held that the award complied with the provisions of Articles V(2)(a) and V(2)(b) NYC, in that the subject matter of the dispute was capable of settlement by arbitration under Swiss law and that recognition and enforcement would not be contrary to Swiss public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1292&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 25 February 2010 Parties Fédération française d'études et de sports sous-marins (FFESSM) v. Société Cutner & Associates P.C. Case number 08/22780 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary The President and General Secretary of a French Federation (FFESSM) entered into an agreement with an American law firm (CUTNER & Associates) for legal representation in a litigation brought by a French Association (Equipe Cousteau) before the Courts of New York. A dispute arose as to counsel's fees. Pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the contract, the American law firm filed a claim against the French Federation before the American Arbitration Association. In an award dated 26 June 2007, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the American law firm and awarded damages. In an order issued on 1 September 2008, the President of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, FFESSM and its President and General Secretary argued that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris lacked jurisdiction to grant the enforcement of the award. In this respect, they argued that they did not receive a proper notice of the procedural acts, which were not translated into French, contrary to the requirement of Article IV(2) NYC, and that enforcement should be denied pursuant to Article 1502 2° and 1502 4° of the Code of Civil Procedure. Lastly, they claimed that only FFESSM is a party to the contract and therefore the arbitral tribunal had been deceived in holding FFESSM's representatives liable in their own name. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement of the award. It ruled that, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris has jurisdiction to allow enforcement of international awards or awards rendered abroad and rejected the fraud allegations which pertained to the merits of the award and were therefore not open to review by the annulment judge. As to the enforcement of the award, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that the arbitral tribunal acted in accordance with the procedure agreed upon between the parties (by referring to the provisions of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association pertaining to procedural acts and the language of the arbitration) and that therefore proper notice was provided to both parties. It then rejected FFESSM's argument based on Article IV NYC by recalling that this provision only deals with the translation requirements for enforcement of awards (i.e. the award has to be translated in the official language of the country in which the award is relied upon). Consequently, it ruled that the fact that the procedural acts in the arbitration were not translated in the language of the country in which the award is sought to be enforced did not constitute a breach of Article IV NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=187&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino Date 22 February 2010 Case number 14.2009.104 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source www.sentenze.ti.ch (website of the Canton of Ticino), published with the authorization of the competent authorities
Languages English Summary The parties, X and Y, entered into a remission agreement (accordo di remissione), which referred to a collection agreement (accordo di riscossione) to which Y was not a party. A dispute arose and following arbitration proceedings in the United States under the American Arbitration Association, an award was rendered against Y. Upon application by X, an Ufficio d’Esecuzione (Debt collection office) in Switzerland issued a payment order against Y’s assets. Y raised an objection against the payment order (opposizione) and X sought dismissal of the objection (rigetto definitivo) before the Pretore (First Instance Court). Y argued, inter alia, that (i) it had not consented to arbitration, (ii) it had not been given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, and (iii) an action to have the award set aside was pending before the courts of California. The Pretore granted Y’s objection, holding that the remission agreement upon which X relied did not contain an arbitration clause, but only referred to the collection agreement for arbitration, to which Y was not a party. X appealed, arguing that the arbitration clause had been reproduced in its entirety in the remission agreement and that as the courts of California had not suspended the enforceability of the award, it was binding upon the parties. The Camera di Esecuzione e Fallimenti del Tribunale d’Appello (Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal) overturned the decision of the Pretore, thus dismissing the objection to the payment order and allowing the enforcement of the award to proceed. The Tribunale d’Appello observed that pursuant to Article 194 of the Federal Act on Private International Law Act, the NYC is applicable to the enforcement and recognition of foreign awards. In this regard, it held that X had complied with the provisions of Article IV(1) and IV(2) NYC by providing certified copies and translations of both the arbitration agreement and award. It then found that the award complied with Article V(1)(a) NYC because the arbitration clause in the collection agreement, to which Y was not party, had been reproduced in the remission agreement signed by Y. The Tribunale d’appello also ruled that Y had been able to present its case and had received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Article V(1)(b) NYC. It held further that the courts of California had not suspended the enforceability of the award pursuant to Article VI NYC, thus the award had become binding on the parties in accordance with Article V(1)(e) NYC. Finally, the Tribunale d’Appello rejected Y’s claim that the award violated Swiss public policy, reasoning that as Y had been able to present its case in accordance with Article V(1)(b) NYC, the award was not contrary to the provisions of Article V(2)(b) NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1293&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Argentina Court Argentina, Cámara Federal de Apelaciones de Mar del Plata (Federal Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata) Date 04 December 2009 Parties Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Arhenpez S.A. Case number 9.716 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V Source www.pjn.gov.ar (website of the Poder Judicial de la Nación)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4574&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 27 November 2008 Parties Société GFI Informatique v. Société Engineering Ingegneria Informatica and Société Engineering Sanità Enti Locali (ex GFI Sanità) Case number 07/11672 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 27 June 2001, a French company (GFI Informatique) entered into a joint venture agreement with two Italian companies (Engineering Ingegneria Informatica - EII - and Engineering Sanita' Enti Locali - ESE). A dispute arose as to the performance of the agreement and EII and ESE filed a Request for arbitration before the Camera Arbitrale di Milano, pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the joint-venture agreement. In an award dated 23 March 2007, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of EII. A corrective award was rendered on 29 March 2007. Enforcement of the award was granted on 16 May 2007 by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris). GFI appealed this decision by arguing that the arbitrators ruled without complying with their mandate and that the award was contrary to international public policy (Articles 1502 3° and 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure). With respect to the first ground, GFI argued that the arbitral tribunal did not take into account all of the submissions filed by the parties, and that EII did not provide the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris with a certified translation of the award by a sworn translator in the list of the said tribunal, which is contrary to the NYC. GFI also claimed that the arbitrators did not discuss the decision amongst themselves, which is contrary to international public policy. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order. It found that the arbitral tribunal had complied with its mandate since only an omission to answer to a specific claim constitutes a ground for non-enforcement under Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was not the case here. As regards the translation of the award, it ruled that the fact the award was not translated by an expert registered among the list of French judicial experts did not constitute a ground for non-enforcement. It added that neither the NYC, nor Article 1499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, required a sworn translation of the award to be given by a translator from the country where enforcement is sought. Lastly, the Cour d'appel de Paris rejected the argument based on a violation of international public policy by holding that the arbitrators had discussed their position and that the President had taken into account the comments provided by the other arbitrators. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=185&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 Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Celle Date 31 May 2007 Case number 8 Sch 06/06 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | II | V(2)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(a) | IV(2) | IV(1)(a) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Oberlandesgericht Celle.
Languages English Summary The Parties – a German Licensee and a Finnish Licensor – concluded a License Agreement which provided for arbitration in Finland. The Licensee terminated the agreement and filed claims against the Licensor before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg. The Landgericht declined jurisdiction on the ground that the License Agreement contained an arbitration clause. The Licensee subsequently initiated arbitration proceedings in Finland. The arbitral tribunal dismissed the Licensee’s claims and granted the Licensor’s counterclaims. The Licensor sought enforcement of the award before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Celle. The Licensee objected to the enforcement arguing, inter alia, that the parties’ business relationship was merely based on an implicit oral agreement and that the License Agreement, including the arbitration clause, existed only in draft form so that the Licensor was incapable of providing the original arbitration agreement as required under Article IV(1)(b) NYC. In addition, the Licensee alleged that the sole arbitrator had been biased because he was a member of an association to which a shareholder of the Licensor belonged. According to the Licensee, the arbitrator’s bias were evidenced by the fact that the award one-sidedly favoured the Licensee and disregarded the Licensee’s substantive arguments and its applications for the submission of evidence. The Licensee also alleged various irregularities regarding the arbitration proceedings. The Oberlandesgericht rejected the Licensee’s claims and declared most of the award to be enforceable. It first stated that the formal requirements for recognition of arbitral awards set out in Articles IV(1)(a) and IV(2) NYC had been met. It concluded that as the Licensor had submitted the original award and its translation, under German law, which was applicable by virtue of the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII NYC, it was not necessary for an applicant to submit the arbitration agreement (Section 1064(1) of the German Civil Procedure Code). The Oberlandesgericht also found that the substantive requirements for granting enforcement had been met, since none of the grounds for denying enforcement under Article V NYC were applicable. With reference to Article V(1)(a) NYC, the Oberlandesgericht noted that it did not need to decide whether the arbitration clause contained in the “License Agreement” was valid or not since the Landgericht’s earlier decision confirming the validity of the arbitration agreement had a res judicata effect. Moreover, given that the Licensee had initiated arbitration proceedings on the basis of the same arbitration agreement, it was now precluded from asserting that the arbitration agreement was invalid. Furthermore, the Oberlandesgericht rejected the Licensee’s argument that its right to be heard had been violated by the arbitrator, finding that the parties had been given a full opportunity to present their case, and that the right to be heard, as provided in Article V(1)(b) NYC, did not protect a party against an arbitral tribunal’s decision to disregard evidence applications by the parties based on formal or substantive reasons. The Oberlandesgericht also rejected the Licensee’s arguments regarding procedural irregularities under Article V(1)(d) NYC. Moreover, the Oberlandesgericht also rejected the Licensee’s arguments regarding a violation of German public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC holding, first, that there was no evidence that the sole arbitrator’s membership in the association to which the Licensor happened to belong had affected the sole arbitrator’s impartiality and, second, that the findings in the award also did not violate German public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1308&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Celle Date 14 December 2006 Case number 8 Sch 14/05 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | IV | II | V(1)(b) | VII(1) | V(1)(a) | IV(2) | V(1)(d) | IV(1)(a) | II(2) | II(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Oberlandesgericht Celle
Languages English Summary A ship-owner and a charterer negotiated two charter-parties but signed only one. The charter-parties referred to the arbitration clause contained in the GENCON 1994 charter-party template, which provided for arbitration in London. Subsequently, the ship-owner initiated arbitration, claiming a breach of the unsigned charter-party, and obtained a favorable award. The ship-owner applied for enforcement before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Celle, which was opposed by the charterer, who also sought annulment of the award by the Oberlandesgericht on the grounds that (i) the charter-party was not enforceable, (ii) that the parties had not concluded a valid arbitration agreement and therefore the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction, (iii) that the arbitration had not been conducted in accordance with English law, which, it argued, permitted an arbitrator to assume jurisdiction only when the existence of an arbitration agreement was undisputed between the parties - which it was not - and that the arbitrator’s decision nevertheless to assume jurisdiction violated German public policy, and (iv) that it had not received a request to nominate an arbitrator and had not yet received a copy of the award. The ship-owner replied saying that (i) the arbitrator had held that the unsigned charter-party, and thus the arbitration agreement, had been validly concluded, (ii) that the charterer had not raised any concerns as to the existence of the arbitration agreement during the arbitral proceedings and could not do so now, and (iii) that the arbitration proceedings did not violate any fundamental legal principles of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Oberlandesgericht declared the award enforceable and denied the request for annulment, reasoning that the award had been rendered in England and could therefore only be annulled in England. The Oberlandesgericht found that the ship-owner had fulfilled the requirements for enforcement under Article III NYC as it had supplied a certified copy of the award as per Article IV(1)(a) NYC and a certified translation of the same as per Article IV(2) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht found that pursuant to the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC, the less stringent requirements of German law (Section 1064 (1) and (3) of the German Civil Procedure Code) were applicable, rather than those in Article IV NYC, and German law did not require submission of the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy of the same. It further noted that according to Articles II(1), II(2) and V(1)(a) NYC a written arbitration agreement was required, but based on the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC the less stringent requirements of Section 1031 of the German Civil Procedure Code would apply, whereby “a written document signed by both parties was not mandatorily necessary”. The Oberlandesgericht concluded that the arbitration agreement contained in the annex of the unsigned charter-party met the formal requirements of a valid arbitration agreement. The Oberlandesgericht said that the factual or legal findings of the arbitrator regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement were not binding on it and that enforcement courts were required to make an independent assessment of whether the requirements of Articles II and V NYC had been met. The Oberlandesgericht found that Article V(1)(d) NYC only concerned defenses regarding the “composition of the arbitral authority” or the “arbitral procedure”, and that the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement was a preliminary question that fell under Article V(1)(a) NYC. It reasoned that there was therefore no basis for refusing enforcement under Article V(1)(d) based on the charterer’s argument that under English law arbitrators could only become active if the existence of an arbitration agreement was undisputed between the parties. The Oberlandesgericht found that the charterer’s allegation that they had not received a request to nominate the arbitrator was contradicted by the evidence and therefore Article V(1)(b) NYC was not applicable. It also held that the charterer had not shown that recognition and enforcement of the award would contradict German public policy and that the fact that it had not yet received a copy of the arbitral award did not constitute a violation of German public policy as it was well recognized that an arbitral award could be transmitted during proceedings for its annulment or enforcement.
