Generic terms
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Guide
Available documents (6)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Slovenia / 07 April 2015 / Slovenia, Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia) / VSRS Sklep Cpg 7/2014
Country Slovenia Court Slovenia, Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia) Date 07 April 2015 Case number VSRS Sklep Cpg 7/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(2) Source http://www.sodnapraksa.si (Public information of Slovenia, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4426&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Australia Court Australia, Federal Court of Australia Date 15 December 2014 Parties Beijing Be Green Import & Export Co Ltd v. Elders International Australia Pty Ltd Case number NSD 1088 of 2014 Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | VII | VII(2) Source [2014] FCA 1375 | https://www.fedcourt.gov.au (website of the Federal Court of Australia)
Languages English affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6103&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United Kingdom Court England and Wales, House of Lords Date 01 March 1984 Parties Minister of Public Works of the Government of the State of Kuwait v. Sir Frederick Snow & Partners Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(2) Source [1984] A.C. 426 | online: ICLR
Languages English Summary In 1979, the claimant State commenced proceedings in England under the Arbitration Act 1975 (U.K.) (“the Act”) to enforce an award made in 1973 by a Kuwaiti arbitrator concerning disputes arising out of a contract for the construction of an international airport in Kuwait. In 1973, when the award was made, the claimant State was not a party to the NYC, but by 1979, when the enforcement proceedings were commenced, it had become a party. The defendants resisted enforcement on the basis that a foreign award could only qualify as a “Convention award” for the purposes of the Act (being defined as “an award made in pursuance of an arbitration agreement in the territory of a state, other than the United Kingdom, which is a party to the [NYC]”) if the State in which it was made was already a party to the NYC at the date of the award. The claimant State argued that a foreign award could qualify as a “Convention award” if the State in which it was made had become a party to the NYC by the date on which the enforcement proceedings were commenced. At first instance, it was held that the award was not a “Convention award” for the purposes of the Act and could not be enforced under it. The claimant State appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The defendants appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the defendants’ appeal, their Lordships preferring the meaning of the expression “Convention award” in the Act contended for by the claimant State. In so ruling, their Lordships noted that in case they were wrong in their view that the meaning of the expression “Convention award” was unambiguous, it was permissible to refer to the text of the NYC in order to obtain assistance in resolving any ambiguity. Such assistance was to be found in Article VII (2) NYC, the effect of which is that, upon two or more States which were parties to the 1923 Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses and the 1927 Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards becoming parties to the NYC, the two earlier treaties shall no longer apply as between such States. If the expression “Convention award” was construed in the way contended for by the defendants, the result of Article VII (2) NYC would be to produce a lacuna in the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of awards as between many States. They gave the following illustration. First, suppose that before 1975, states A and B were both parties to the Geneva Treaty of 1927. In that case, awards made in state A could be enforced pursuant to that treaty in state B, and vice versa. Next, suppose that in 1975 both states A and B became parties to the NYC. Then, on the defendants' construction of the expression “Convention award”, an award made in state A in, say, 1970, could not be enforced as a Convention award in state B because, at the time when such award was made, state A was not yet a party to the NYC. At the same time, by reason of Article VII(2) NYC, the award made in state A could not be enforced in state B under the Geneva Treaty of 1927, because that treaty would, upon states A and B becoming parties to the NYC in 1975, have ceased to have effect as between them. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=890&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Nancy (Court of Appeal of Nancy) Date 05 December 1980 Parties Les Trefileries & Ateliers de Commercy (T.A.C.) v. Société Philipp Brothers France et Société Derby & Co Limited Case number 753/80 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) | VII | VII(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Nancy
Summary A French company (Les Trefileries & Ateliers de Commercy - TAC) ordered 900 tons of RUTIL from another French company (Philipp Brothers France) by telex on 12 March 1975. On 21 March 1975, Philipp Brothers France sent TAC a sales contract established by Derby & Co Ltd for 900 tons of RUTIL, which was then signed by TAC on 2 April 1975. The contract was concluded under the General Conditions of Derby & Co Ltd which contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in London. A dispute arose and TAC sued both Philipp Brothers France and Derby & Co Ltd before French Courts. The Tribunal de Commerce de Bar Le Duc (Commercial Court of Bar Le Duc) held that the NYC did not apply in the case at hand given that it was ratified by the United Kingdom on 24 September 1975 (while noting that the sales contract was concluded on 2 April 1975) and therefore the award, which had not been declared enforceable in France, had no effect under French law. Nevertheless, it found that TAC's claims were groundless. TAC appealed this decision. The Cour d'appel de Nancy (Nancy Court of Appeal) reversed the decision and found that TAC's action was inadmissible. It first noted that the sales contract had been signed and accepted by TAC and therefore the sales contract was binding upon TAC and Derby & Co Ltd, which included the arbitration agreement. It noted further that the Arbitral Chamber of London had rendered an award on 13 December 1977. It then reasoned that while the NYC replaced the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, Article VII(2) NYC provides that the Geneva Protocol shall cease to have effect between the Contracting States on their becoming bound by the NYC. It noted that at the time of the signature of the sales contract, the United Kingdom was still bound by the provisions of the Geneva Protocol and that pursuant to Article I of the Geneva Protocol, the arbitration agreement was valid. Given that the United Kingdom had ratified the NYC on 24 September 1975 and that the award was rendered on 13 December 1977, the Cour d'appel de Nancy held that the arbitral award was applicable to the French party, on the basis of reciprocity. It ruled further that pursuant to Article II(3) NYC, the Tribunal de Commerce de Bar Le Duc should have referred the parties to arbitration. In conclusion, it held that the arbitral award was res judicata and that TAC's claims were inadmissible pursuant to Article 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=114&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Landgericht Bremen Date 16 December 1965 Case number 12-OH 2/1965 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | II | VII(2) | VII(1) | II(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Landgericht Bremen Languages English Summary The Buyer imported honey from the Seller. Following a request from the Buyer, the Seller shipped certain quantities of honey and asked the Buyer to sign a contract calling for the resolution of all disputes in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Dutch Association for the Trade in Tropical Fruit and Spices. The Buyer did not sign the contract form, and informed the Seller that it would refuse the goods and not make the payment. The Seller obtained a favourable arbitral award against the Buyer in Rotterdam and sought enforcement in Germany. The Landgericht (Regional Court) Bremen denied the Seller’s request to declare the award enforceable under Article V(1)(a) NYC for lack of an arbitration agreement in writing. The Landgericht noted that Article II(2) NYC required the arbitration agreement to take the form of a clause in a contract or otherwise be signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams. It considered that the Seller’s form contract containing the arbitration agreement, however, had not been accepted by the Buyer. The Landgericht further held that pursuant to Article VII (2) NYC, the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927 did not apply because that treaty had ceased to have legal effect for both Germany and the Netherlands from when the NYC became binding on both countries. The Landgericht, however, found that German procedural law could apply in accordance with Article VII(1) NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=917&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
