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
Austria / 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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 08 February 2000 Parties Vinalmar S.A. v. Gaspar Peral y Cía S.L. Case number ATS 16/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4068&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 01 February 2000 Parties Project XJ220 LTD v. D. Federicoa Case number ATS 469/2000 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4070&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 01 December 1998 Parties Lenersan Poortman B.V. v. Salvador Martínez Mari S.L. Case number ATS 968/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4077&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 29 September 1998 Parties ETS Sebtigrains v. Armengol Hermanos S.A. Case number ATS 1436/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | 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=4079&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Obergericht des Kantons Zug Date 27 February 1998 Case number JZ 1997/104.161 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(2) | V Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Obergericht des Kantons Zug
Languages English Summary A Russian party entered into a sales contract, in both Russian and German, with a Swiss party, which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and the Russian party obtained an arbitration award from the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, which it sought to enforce at the Kantonsgericht (Cantonal Court) Zug. The Kantonsgericht denied recognition and enforcement, holding that the Russian party had not shown that the German translation of the arbitral award had been certified by an official or sworn translator or a diplomatic or consular agent in accordance with Article IV(2) NYC. The Russian party appealed from the decision to the Obergericht (Higher Cantonal Court) Zug. The Swiss party opposed enforcement on the grounds that the translation of the award provided by the Russian party was not in compliance with Article IV(2) NYC. The Russian party argued that the German translation was prepared by a notary public, which confirmed that the translation corresponded to the original text, and that the translation contained an apostille after the signature of the notary public. The Obergericht dismissed the appeal. After noting that the arbitration agreement was in compliance with Article II NYC, it stated that an enforcement court had to assess ex officio whether the requirements of Article IV NYC were fulfilled. It observed that where the arbitral award was not in an official language of Switzerland, the applicant needed to provide a translation of the award that was certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent in accordance with Article IV(2) NYC. It stated that such a certification only needed to comply with the law at the arbitral seat and that the procedural cantonal law could soften or even eliminate the certification requirement. It noted that the purpose of the translation requirement was to provide the enforcement judge, who was not familiar with the language of the original award, with a secure basis on which to assess not only the defenses raised by the enforcement debtor but also the grounds under Article V(2) NYC, which it needed to consider ex officio. The Obergericht found that the translation provided by the Russian party did not meet the requirements under Article IV(2) NYC because the notary public had not certified the accuracy of the translation, but only the authenticity of the copy of the arbitral award used for the translation. The Obergericht noted that generally a translation made by a third party and certified by a notary public who is capable of understanding the language of the translation – if done properly – would meet the criteria of Article IV(2) NYC. It found that a separate signature of the notary public for a remark in Russian after the translation could not be taken into account because, being in Russian, it could not be understood by the court. It also noted that the apostille could also not effectuate a diplomatic or consular certification of the translation. Finally, the Obergericht stated that its decision that the translation did not fulfill the requirements of Article IV(2) NYC was not overly formalistic given that the Russian party could have easily have obtained and provided a diplomatic or consular certification at the Swiss diplomatic representation in Moscow or at the Russian diplomatic representation in Switzerland. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1419&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 17 February 1998 Parties Union de Cooperativas Agrícolas Epis-Centre v. La Palentina S.A. Case number ATS 1451/1998 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4023&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 29 May 1996 Parties D**** v. H**** GmbH Case number 3Ob2098/96t Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3893&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Korea Court Korea, Seoul Civil District Court Date 12 April 1984 Parties Cheil Steamer Co., Ltd. v. Construction Industry Co., Ltd. Case number 83Gahap7051 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6414&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 09 December 1980 Parties Harborn v. José Luis Larabeiti, S.A. Case number ATS 490/1980 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(2) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4638&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Obergericht des Kantons Zürich Date 08 December 1980 Case number II.ZK.Nr. 8 A/80 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Obergericht des Kantons Zürich
Languages English Summary The parties concluded several charter parties all of which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in New York City, under New York law, and stating that any arbitral award rendered under the agreement was to be final and binding on the parties in any country. The Respondent obtained a favorable award against the Applicant, which, upon the Respondent’s application, the Bezirksgericht (Regional Court) Zurich declared to be enforceable. The Applicant appealed to the Obergericht (Higher Cantonal Court) Zurich contending that the arbitral award had not become binding since, under Section 7510 of the applicable New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), it had to have been confirmed by a New York court within one year of having been served on the parties and that such time limit had now passed. The Respondent argued that the NYC only required that the award had become binding, but not that it could be enforced under the CPLR. The Respondent also argued that the report of the legal expert submitted by the Applicant in support of the alleged confirmation requirement should be rejected since it was not accompanied by a certified translation. The Obergericht dismissed the appeal. It noted that the Respondent had followed its interim order to provide a certification by the County Clerk of the State of New York that the notary public who had certified the copy of the award was competent to do so, along with a certification of the County Clerk’s signature by the Swiss Diplomatic representation in New York. On that basis, the Obergericht concluded that the formal requirements under Article IV and II NYC were fulfilled. The Obergericht rejected the Respondent’s request to exclude the Applicant’s expert report for lack of a certified translation reasoning that, unlike Article IV(2) NYC, Article V NYC did not require evidence against the enforceability of arbitral awards to be submitted in the form of a certified translation, rather, it was up to the court to obtain such translations if they were needed. Regarding the Applicant’s objection under Article V(1)(e) NYC, the Obergericht found that the award was to be considered binding even though it had not been confirmed by the competent court in New York since the “confirmation” under Section 7510 CPLR only had the meaning of a declaration of enforceability rather than being a decision about the arbitral award’s binding effect. The Bundesgericht held that in proceedings under the NYC for enforcement of a New York award in another contracting state of the NYC, the confirmation proceedings under the CPLR were effectively substituted by Article IV NYC since the enforcement creditor would otherwise be forced to pursue a double exequatur. The Obergericht concluded that an award was not binding under the NYC only in the event that the losing party had sought vacatur or modification of the award under Section 7511 CPLR within the applicable time limit, or if the competent New York court had indeed annulled or modified the award. The Obergericht clarified that a party’s right to request vacatur or modification of the award under the CPLR was available even in relation to arbitration agreements which state that the arbitral award shall be “finally effective,” since the right to such proceedings could not be waived by the parties. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1425&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
