Guide
|
Available documents (107)
France / 27 November 2008 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société GFI Informatique v. Société Engineering Ingegneria Informatica and Société Engineering Sanità Enti Locali (ex GFI Sanità) / 07/11672
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 PDFMorocco / 26 August 2008 / Morocco, Commercial Court of Appeal of Casablanca / Scientific Production Company for Commerce Natane v. Rony Brice’s Company / 1795-2008-4
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 PDFAustria / 23 October 2007 / Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) / K**** v. F**** AG / 3Ob141/07t
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 PDFCyprus / 19 October 2007 / Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λάρνακας (District Court of Larnaca) / Bristol Business Corporation v. Besuno Limited / Application No. 1/07
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. see also :
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §38
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / a. Domestic law more favourable than article II / §34
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / a. Documents specified under article IV(1) / §17
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / A. The requirement that the applicant provide the arbitration agreement 'referred to in article II' / §66
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §37
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1316&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Kammergericht Date 10 August 2006 Case number 20 Sch 07/04 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | IV | III | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | VII(1) | V(1)(a) | IV(2) | IV(1)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Kammergericht
Languages English Summary In relation to a joint venture contract for the exploration of Lithuanian oil fields, a tribunal constituted under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), seated in Copenhagen, ordered the Respondents, a foreign state and a company incorporated under the laws of that state, to pay damages to the Applicant as joint and several debtors. The foreign state issued a resolution stating that it did not consider it appropriate to seek annulment of the award at the seat of the arbitration. The Applicant applied for enforcement of the award in Germany. The foreign state opposed enforcement before the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court Berlin) arguing that (i) it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, (ii) the arbitration agreement did not encompass disputes regarding the oil fields, (iii) this was a dispute about natural resources which were in the public law domain and thus not susceptible to arbitration, and (iv) that it had not been fully granted the right to be heard. The foreign state further argued that its resolution did not constitute a waiver of the right to seek an annulment of the award and that the time limit for seeking annulment had not yet passed. In addition, it sought that the arbitral tribunal’s factual findings be fully reassessed by the Kammergericht. The Respondent company opposed enforcement of the award, stating that (i) the Applicant had not fulfilled the formal requirements for enforcement as it had not submitted a notarized translation of the arbitration agreement, (ii) that the application for enforcement would constitute an abuse of law as the Applicant was not willing to comply with the award issued for the counter claims raised by the Respondent company, and (iii) that the recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to German public policy. It further argued that it did not have any attachable assets in Germany due to which the Kammergericht did not have jurisdiction over it. The Kammergericht declared the award enforceable against the Respondent state but not the company. It found that the application met the formal requirements for a declaration of enforceability and that pursuant to Section 1064 paras 1 and 3 of the German Civil Procedure Code the Applicant need only provide a certified copy of the arbitral award. It held that while Articles IV(1)(b) and IV(2) NYC required submission of the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and a certified translation of the award, under the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC, the less stringent requirements of German law would be applicable. The Kammergericht noted that this interpretation was also in line with Article III NYC according to which the recognition of foreign awards could not be subject to substantially more onerous conditions than the recognition of domestic awards. On the merits, the Kammergericht concluded that the Respondent state was precluded from raising objections since it had previously, by way of its resolution, abstained from seeking annulment of the award at the arbitral seat, even though the award could only be set aside at the seat. According to the Kammergericht, for the Respondent state to object to enforcement now was in contradiction to its previous stance and against good faith. With respect to the Respondent company, the Kammergericht refused to declare the award enforceable, finding that the application was inadmissible since the company did not own assets in Germany. The Kammergericht concluded that its finding of inadmissibility was not barred under the NYC as it did not involve a decision on the merits of the dispute and the NYC did not address general admissibility requirements in addition to the specific requirements stipulated in the NYC. reversed by : see also :
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §38
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / a. Documents specified under article IV(1) / §17
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / b. Documents specified under article IV(2) / §20
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / A. The requirement that the applicant provide the arbitration agreement 'referred to in article II' / §66
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §37
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1318&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFAustria / 26 April 2006 / Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) / D**** S.A. v. W**** GmbH / 3Ob211/05h
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 26 April 2006 Parties D**** S.A. v. W**** GmbH Case number 3Ob211/05h Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3884&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCyprus / 18 January 2006 / Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Αμμόχωστου (District Court of Ammochostos) / ΕΠΕ Τεχσναμπ (Techsnab Ltd.) v. CNS Energy Company Ltd / Application No. 5/05
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Αμμόχωστου (District Court of Ammochostos) Date 18 January 2006 Parties ΕΠΕ Τεχσναμπ (Techsnab Ltd.) v. CNS Energy Company Ltd Case number Application No. 5/05 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | XII | XII(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=6690&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFGermany / 28 November 2005 / Germany, Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court of Munich) / 34 Sch 019/05
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court of Munich) Date 28 November 2005 Case number 34 Sch 019/05 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | IV | V(2)(b) | IV(2) | IV(1)(a) | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Oberlandesgericht München
Languages English Summary The Respondent, a German paint company, engaged the Applicant, a UK construction company, to perform plastering works on certain buildings in the UK. A dispute arose as to the quality of the Applicant’s work and the Respondent refused to pay the Applicant for the work done. The parties went to arbitration and a sole arbitrator rendered an award granting part of the Applicant’s claims. The Applicant sought enforcement of the partial award in Germany. The Respondent objected to the enforcement contending, in particular, that the award should not be enforced since the sole arbitrator had not taken into account certain facts presented by the Respondent. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) München granted enforcement stating that the application for a declaration of enforceability met the formal requirements under German law (Sections 1025(4), 1061(1), 1064(1) and (3) of the German Civil Procedure Code. It noted that the Applicant had submitted the original award as well as a translation in German. It further stated that to the extent that Article IV NYC contained additional requirements regarding the submission of documents and their respective quality, pursuant to the more-favorable-right principle at Article VII(1) NYC, the less stringent requirements of German law were applicable instead of those in Article IV NYC . The Oberlandesgericht concluded that Section 1064(1) of the German Civil Procedure Code, in conjunction with Section 1064(3) of the German Civil Procedure Code were more favorable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards and were applicable instead of Article IV NYC. The Oberlandesgericht also held that the grounds for refusing enforcement under Article V NYC were not applicable as the Respondent had not raised any of the grounds for refusing enforcement under Article V(1) NYC, and that enforcement could not be rejected based on the Respondent’s claim that the award violated public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht stated that an arbitral award violated public policy only if it violated a norm which affected the basis of German public and economic life or if it constituted an irreconcilable contradiction of German perceptions of justice. It held that public policy also included fundamental principles of procedural law, such as the right to be heard, and that whether there had been a breach of the right to be heard would be assessed on the basis of principles of German law. The Oberlandesgericht further held that it was key whether, from the standpoint of German public policy, the specific result of the application of a foreign law was to be rejected. The Oberlandesgericht concluded that in the present there was no violation of public policy as the Respondent had failed to prove that the arbitral tribunal had indeed ignored relevant facts. see also :
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §38
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a. The public policy exception under the Convention / §9
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(1) / a. Awards “made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought” / §45
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §37
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Procedural public policy / §35
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1324&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Higher Regional Court of Hamm) Date 27 September 2005 Case number 29 Sch 01/05 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | IV | VII(1) | V(2)(b) | V(1)(a) | IV(2) | IV(1)(a) Source DIS Languages English Summary The parties entered into an agreement which provided that the Applicant, an Iranian citizen, would assist the Respondent, a German company, in resolving certain disputes it had with the Iranian authorities in exchange for a “consulting fee”. The agreement contained the following arbitration clause: “All disputes arising in connection with this Letter of Commitment shall be settled in accordance with the laws of conciliation and arbitration of the Geneva Chamber of Commerce. In case of non-settlement, the dispute will be submitted for a final decision to the arbitrators of the Geneva Court of Justice. The rules of conciliation an arbitration of the said court will be binding for both parties”. Subsequently, the Applicant initiated arbitration proceedings at the Geneva Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Services, Geneva (CCIG), seeking payment of outstanding consulting fees. The Respondent participated in the arbitration proceedings but sought a declaration that there existed no valid arbitration clause, the dismissal of the Applicant’s claims, and that conciliation proceedings be conducted following the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Conciliation proceedings were conducted with no result and thereafter the arbitral tribunal decided on its jurisdiction in an interim arbitral award. The interim award stated that while the arbitration clause was “pathological”, it was nevertheless valid since the parties’ intent to arbitrate disputes in general, and more specifically to refer disputes to arbitration under the auspices of Geneva’s leading arbitral institution, was clear. The arbitral tribunal awarded part of the Applicant’s claims. The Applicant sought enforcement in Germany, to which the Respondent objected, arguing that the arbitration agreement was not valid because the clause was contradictory, and also that one of the signatories had understood it to be a choice of forum clause. The Respondent further argued that enforcement would be contrary to public policy in Germany because the award was rendered in violation of the Respondent’s right to be heard as the tribunal had failed to hear a witness on the issue of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and moreover, the consulting agreement was illegal because it has been concluded for the purpose of financing the payment of bribes. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Hamm granted enforcement, finding that the formal conditions for recognition of the award, as set out in Article IV(1)(a) and IV(2) NYC, had been met as the Applicant had provided certified copies and translations of the final and interim awards. It found that it was sufficient that the Applicant had only provided a copy of the arbitration agreement and not the original because, pursuant to the NYC’s more-favorable-right provision in Article VII(1) NYC, the less stringent requirements Section 1064 of the German Civil Procedure Code were applicable instead of those in Article IV(1) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht rejected the Respondent’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid (Article V(1)(a) NYC), reasoning that the Respondent had not only agreed to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the conciliation proceedings and to the tribunal deciding its jurisdiction in an interim award, but had also subsequently engaged in arguments on the merits without challenging the interim award under Article 190(3) read with 190(2)(b) of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law. It held that it would be a contradiction of the principle of fair and good conduct of proceedings if the Respondent were allowed, after such conduct, to question the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage. The Oberlandesgericht stated that there was no established case law to the effect that the NYC would bar such a preclusion. It also held that, in any case, the Respondent’s defense regarding the absence of a valid arbitration clause was unfounded. It dismissed the Respondent’s public policy objections under Article V(2)(b) NYC stating that the Respondent itself had failed to call the relevant witness to testify on the issue in question and that the alleged bribery payments to Iranian officials had not been proven by the Respondent. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1320&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFKorea / 10 December 2004 / Korea, Supreme Court of Korea / K&V International Emb. Co. Ltd. v. Sunstar Precision Co. Ltd. (formerly Korea Special Precision Co., Ltd.) / 2004Da20180
Country Korea Court Korea, Supreme Court of Korea Date 10 December 2004 Parties K&V International Emb. Co. Ltd. v. Sunstar Precision Co. Ltd. (formerly Korea Special Precision Co., Ltd.) Case number 2004Da20180 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) Source Languages Korean affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6419&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFSpain / 20 July 2004 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Antilles Cement Corporation v. Transficem / ATS 9443/2004
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 20 July 2004 Parties Antilles Cement Corporation v. Transficem Case number ATS 9443/2004 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | III | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) 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=4025&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFFrance / 18 March 2004 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Synergie v. Société SC Conect / 2001/18372, 2001/18379 & 2001/18382
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 18 March 2004 Parties Société Synergie v. Société SC Conect Case number 2001/18372, 2001/18379 & 2001/18382 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary Three arbitral awards were rendered in Romania on 29 May 1998 following a dispute between a French company (Synergie) and a Romanian company (Conect). In three orders issued on 14 May 2001, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the awards in France. Appealing these decisions, Synergie objected, with respect to the request for enforcement, to the lack of translation of the award by an expert recorded on the list of experts of the court contrary to Article 1499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to the fact that incomplete awards had been notified to it. It argued further that (i) the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred to it (Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure), (ii) due process was violated (Article 1502 4°) and (iii) the arbitral tribunal breached "provisions of international public policy" (Article 1502 5°). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement orders and dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the grounds for refusing enforcement of an award listed under Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure are exhaustive and that therefore the fact that the award had not been translated by a French sworn translator (but by a Romanian expert) did not constitute a ground for refusing enforcement. It then held that Article IV NYC requires the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award to produce a translation of the said award in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent, but does not provide that the translation be made by a sworn translator recorded on the list of experts of the court. Lastly, it noted that a full translation of the award had been produced during the proceedings. The Cour d'appel de Paris then dismissed the other grounds for refusing enforcement. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=164&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFSpain / 07 October 2003 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / The Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited v. Hermanos Vila S.A. / ATS 10039/2003
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 07 October 2003 Parties The Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited v. Hermanos Vila S.A. Case number ATS 10039/2003 Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | 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=4032&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFAustria / 28 November 2002 / Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) / M**** a.s. v. B**** KG / 3Ob196/02y
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 28 November 2002 Parties M**** a.s. v. B**** KG Case number 3Ob196/02y Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3887&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFSpain / 24 September 2002 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Mare Blu Societa di Navigazione Arl v. Harinas del Guadalquivir S.L. / ATS 1283/2002
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 24 September 2002 Parties Mare Blu Societa di Navigazione Arl v. Harinas del Guadalquivir S.L. Case number ATS 1283/2002 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4039&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Hungary Court Hungary, Kúria (Supreme Court of Hungary) Case number EBH2002.773 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(2) | II | II(1) | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.kuria-birosag.hu (website of the Supreme Court of Hungary)
Languages Hungarian affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5313&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFSpain / 13 March 2001 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Project XJ200 Ltd v. H. Capital S.A. (Portic S.A.) / ATS 773/2001
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 13 March 2001 Parties Project XJ200 Ltd v. H. Capital S.A. (Portic S.A.) Case number ATS 773/2001 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4048&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFSpain / 28 November 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Precious Stones Shipping Limited v. Querqus Alimentaria S.L. / ATS 1239/2000
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 28 November 2000 Parties Precious Stones Shipping Limited v. Querqus Alimentaria S.L. Case number ATS 1239/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4051&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFGermany / 11 August 2000 / Germany, Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht (Bavarian Highest Regional Court) / 4 Z Sch 05/00
Country Germany Court Germany, Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht (Bavarian Highest Regional Court) Date 11 August 2000 Case number 4 Z Sch 05/00 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | IV | IV(2) | VII(1) Source DIS
Summary The Parties concluded a construction contract and by additional agreement agreed to refer disputes to arbitration in Moscow. The Claimant obtained a favorable award and sought enforcement in Germany. The Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht (Bavarian Supreme Court) granted enforcement, finding that the Claimant had complied with the formal requirements under German law (which applied pursuant to the most-favorable-right provision under Article VII(1) NYC), which requires that the Claimant supply the award or a certified copy thereof together with the request for enforcement. Under German law, the arbitration agreement and the translations mentioned in Article IV(2) NYC need not be supplied. see also :
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / b. Documents specified under article IV(2) / §20
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / a. Documents specified under article IV(1) / §17
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / A. The requirement that the applicant provide the arbitration agreement 'referred to in article II' / §66
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / b. Domestic law more favourable than article IV / §37
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=252&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFAustria / 20 June 2000 / Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) / S**** v. A****, H****, Andre H****, Stefan S**** / 3Ob347/99x
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 20 June 2000 Parties S**** v. A****, H****, Andre H****, Stefan S**** Case number 3Ob347/99x Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3891&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFSpain / 08 February 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Vinalmar S.A. v. Gaspar Peral y Cía S.L. / ATS 16/2000
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 PDFSpain / 01 February 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Project XJ220 LTD v. D. Federicoa / ATS 469/2000
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 PDFSpain / 01 December 1998 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Lenersan Poortman B.V. v. Salvador Martínez Mari S.L. / ATS 968/1998
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