Available documents (146)
Brazil / 28 August 2007 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others / Interlocutory Appeal 518.393-4/9-00
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) Date 28 August 2007 Parties First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others Case number Interlocutory Appeal 518.393-4/9-00 Source http://www.tjsp.jus.br (Official website of the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo)
Languages Portuguese Summary In a previous proceeding, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça had granted recognition and enforcement to the award in which an arbitral tribunal had found in favour of First Brands do Brasil Ltda. (First Brands) and other. In the current dispute before the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (São Paulo Court of Appeals) Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A and others sought to declare the nullity of the arbitral award. The Court of First Instance rejected First Brands argument that the claim be dismissed without prejudice because the Superior Tribunal de Justiça had already granted recognition and enforcement to the award. Thus, First Brands filed an Interlocutory Appeal before the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo seeking an order that it was not possible to challenge the validity of an award after it was granted recognition and enforcement by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. The Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo dismissed the appeal based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act) allowing the challenge proceedings to continue before the Brazilian courts. It stated that recognition and enforcement proceedings did not review the content of the arbitral award. Thus, the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo found that the Superior Tribunal de Justiça only analyzes the award on the criteria laid down in Article 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act (which mirror Article V(1)(2) NYC). Therefore, according to the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo the Superior Tribunal de Justiça has no competence to decide on the nullity of the arbitral award based on Article 32 of the Arbitration Act unless the criteria outlined in both provisions are the same. The Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo considered that possible objections dealing with the recognition and enforcement of the foreign award were not the same as the ones to declare a nullity of an award. Thus, this demonstrated that they had different content despite eventually having some overlapping provisions allowing the same objections in both proceedings. Therefore, the interlocutory appeal to dismiss the claims without prejudice was dismissed and the proceedings for setting aside the award continued. affirmed by : see also :
- Brazil / 23 November 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC / SEC 611
- Brazil / 18 April 2007 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC v First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. / Motion for Clarification on SEC 611
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1346&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 26 June 2007 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Guidosimplex Drive Ltda. v Cavenaghi, Cavenaghi e Companhia Ltda, / SEC 918
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 26 June 2007 Parties Guidosimplex Drive Ltda. v Cavenaghi, Cavenaghi e Companhia Ltda, Case number SEC 918 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Guidosimplex Drive Ltda. (Guidosimplex) and Cavenaghi Cavenaghi e Companhia Ltda. (Cavenaghi) entered into a distribution contract in Italy containing an arbitration clause which provided for “Colégio Arbitral de Roma” arbitration. A dispute arose and an award was rendered in Italy. Guidosimplex sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Cavenaghi opposed recognition and enforcement on the ground that Guidosimplex lacked standing to request the enforcement of the award since it had not participated in the arbitration proceedings. Cavenaghi also argued that the award was rendered beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, pursuant to Article 38(IV) of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article V(1)(c) NYC), because the arbitral tribunal had awarded damages as penalty for a breach of contract although there was no penalty clause in the contract. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça granted recognition and enforcement to the foreign award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act. It dismissed the contention based on the lack of standing because it found that there was a valid representation agreement which granted standing to Guidosimplex despite the fact that it had not participated in the arbitral proceedings. Regarding Cavenaghi’s argument that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça ruled that the issue pertained to the merits and therefore dismissed the argument. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=24&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 16 May 2007 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Bouvery International S/A v Valex Exportadora de Café Ltda. / SEC 839
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 16 May 2007 Parties Bouvery International S/A v Valex Exportadora de Café Ltda. Case number SEC 839 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Bouvery International S/A (Bouvery) and Valex Exportadora de Café Ltda. (Valex) entered into a contract for the purchase of coffee. Following a dispute between the parties Bouvery commenced arbitration at the Chambre arbitrale des cafés et des poivres in Le Havre (France). The arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of Bouvery which then sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Valex opposed recognition and enforcement of the award on the ground that no purchase agreement had been concluded. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça granted recognition and enforcement to the award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act. It held that the denial of recognition and enforcement depended upon a showing by the Respondent that one or more of the conditions set out in Article 38 (which mirrors Article V(1) NYC) were applicable. It considered that Bouvery failed to establish any of these conditions and instead presented arguments based on the merits of the dispute. Before granting recognition and enforcement the Superior Tribunal de Justiça also noted that the award did not violate Brazilian public policy, national sovereignty or common decency. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=23&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 16 May 2007 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Subway Partners C V v HTP High Techonology Foods Corporation S/A / Motion for Clarification on SEC 833
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 16 May 2007 Parties Subway Partners C V v HTP High Techonology Foods Corporation S/A Case number Motion for Clarification on SEC 833 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Subway Partners C V (Subway Partners) and HTP High Techonology Foods Corporation S/A (HTP) entered into a franchising agreement which contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). A dispute arose and an arbitral award was rendered, ex parte, in the United States. The award was confirmed by the District Court for the District of Connecticut. Subway Partners sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) which denied the request. Subway Partners filed a Motion for Clarification arguing that the judgment failed to take into account that it had complied with the formal requirements, since it presented a copy of the arbitration agreement along with other documents. It further argued that Article 38 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article V(1) NYC) provided the only grounds which the courts may rely upon to deny recognition and enforcement to a foreign award. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça affirmed its previous decision denying recognition and enforcement to the award. It held that it was clear that Subway Partners sought to review the merits of the decision instead of indicating obscure or contradictory points in the decision, which was not the purpose of Motions for Clarification. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1343&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 18 April 2007 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC v First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. / Motion for Clarification on SEC 611
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 07 March 2007 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos Sociedad Anónima Comercial Industrial Financeira Imobiliaria y Agropecuaria v Moinho Paulista Ltda. / Motion for Clarification on SEC 866
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 07 March 2007 Parties Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos Sociedad Anónima Comercial Industrial Financeira Imobiliaria y Agropecuaria v Moinho Paulista Ltda. Case number Motion for Clarification on SEC 866 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos Sociedad Anónima Comercial Industrial Financeira Imobiliaria y Agropecuaria (Oleaginosa) filed a motion for clarification, claiming that the decision rendered following proceedings for recognition and enforcement (SEC No. 866) was obscure and contradictory. Since the objections raised by Oleaginosa, if successful, could result in modifications to the judgment, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) also allowed the Respondent in the enforcement and recognition proceedings, Moinho Paulista Ltda. (Moinho Paulista), to present its arguments on the objections raised. Oleaginosa argued that certain parts of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act) had ceased to be in force after the entry into force of the NYC. It stated that an exchange of telexes containing an arbitration agreement between the parties would lead to a presumption that Moinho Paulista had agreed to the arbitration agreement. Moreover, Moinho Paulista had never objected to the existence of the arbitration agreement but to the contracts containing the agreement. Oleaginosa further argued that the decision had failed to analyze evidence and arguments relating to the validity of the arbitration agreement, which had been presented before the arbitral tribunal. In addition, it stated the decision was unclear concerning the interpretation that the non-compliance with Article 37(II) of the Arbitration Act would lead to a violation of Brazilian public policy. Finally, Oleaginosa argued that Article 4 and other procedural rules of the Arbitration Act were applicable only to proceedings which took place in Brazilian territory. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça affirmed the judgment, dismissing all the allegations concerning obscurity or contradiction in the judgment. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça noted that the question of whether the Arbitration Act remained in force after the ratification of the NYC was moot since the NYC was incorporated into Brazilian Law on 23 July 2002, after the execution of the contract, and even after the request for recognition and enforcement. Even if the NYC was considered to be in force, Article II(2) NYC required evidence of the consent to arbitrate when such consent was given through a letter or telegram. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça held that this requirement had not been satisfied in the present case. The Court concluded the issue by considering that the objection was unfounded because it was clear that there was no evidence on record unequivocally showing that Moinho Paulista had agreed to the arbitration agreement. Regarding the argument that Moinho Paulista had not raised objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement but only to the existence of the contract, it found that it was a matter of course that if there was no contract, there could not be an arbitration agreement in the contract. Therefore, there was no obscurity or contradiction on this point. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça dismissed the other arguments as irrelevant stating that it amounted to Oleaginosa seeking a review of the decision, which, in most cases, was not possible under a motion for clarification proceedings. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1340&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 06 December 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Grain Partners SPA v Cooperativa dos Produtores e Trabalhadores Urbanos e Rurais de Sorriso Ltda. – Coopergrão and Oito Exportação e Importação de Cereais e Defensivos Agrícolas Ltda. / Motion for Clarification on SEC 507
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 06 December 2006 Parties Grain Partners SPA v Cooperativa dos Produtores e Trabalhadores Urbanos e Rurais de Sorriso Ltda. – Coopergrão and Oito Exportação e Importação de Cereais e Defensivos Agrícolas Ltda. Case number Motion for Clarification on SEC 507 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Grain Partners SPA (Grain Partners) entered into several contracts for the purchase and sale of soy with Cooperativa dos Produtores e Trabalhadores Urbanos e Rurais de Sorriso Ltda. – Coopergrão (Coopergrão) and Oito Exportação e Importação de Cereais e Defensivos Agrícolas Ltda. (Oito Exportação). A dispute subsequently arose and the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations Limited (FOSFA) rendered an award ordering Coopergrão and Oito Exportação to pay damages. Grain Partners successfully sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Grain Partners and Oito Exportação filed motions for clarifications before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça alleging the decision had contradictions and had failed to properly address all the arguments raised. Grain Partners argued that the Court failed to apply the NYC in accordance with Article 34 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act which determines that a foreign award shall be recognized and enforced in accordance with international treaties effective in the internal legal system, or, in the absence thereof, strictly according to the terms of the Brazilian Arbitration Act. The Superior Court of Justice affirmed the decision rendered. The Court asserted that the decision had no omission or contradictions and effectively took into account all the arguments raised, which is why the motion for clarification were dismissed. affirms :
- Brazil / 18 October 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Grain Partners SPA v Cooperativa dos Produtores Trabalhadores Rurais de Sorriso Ltda. / SEC 507
- Brazil / 20 September 2012 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Oito Grãos Exportação e Importação de Cereais Defensivos Agrícolas Ltda. v Galaxy Grain Itália SPA / Special Appeal 1.203.430
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1344&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 23 November 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC / SEC 611
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 23 November 2006 Parties First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC Case number SEC 611 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary The parties entered into three joint venture agreements. A dispute arose and an arbitral award was rendered under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Florida. First Brands do Brasil Ltda. (First Brands) and STP do Brasil Ltda. (STP Brasil) sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA (STP Automotives) and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC (Petroplus) opposed recognition and enforcement of the award on the grounds that (i) the arbitration agreement was null and void because STP Automotives was misled as to the scope of the arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitral award was beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; (iii) the arbitral award violated national sovereignty, since an appeal to set aside the award was still pending and the arbitral tribunal failed to apply Brazilian law; and (iv) the arbitral award violated due process. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça granted recognition and enforcement of the foreign award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act). It held at the outset that the Claimants presented certified copies pursuant to Article 37 of the Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article IV NYC). The Superior Tribunal de Justiça noted that the Respondents’ arguments were based on Article 38 of the Arbitration Act (which mirrors Articles V(1) NYC). After expounding that Article 38 does not allow any review of the merits, it held that despite being based on Article 38, Respondents’ arguments were an attempt to review the merits. Concerning the scope of the arbitration agreement, it held that Respondents attempted to review a jurisdictional question that had been placed before the Tribunal, concerning the participation of a controlling company named Clorox. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça asserted that it could not review the parties’ standing before the arbitral tribunal as it would be equivalent to reviewing the merits. Regarding Respondents’ argument that the award was rendered in violation of national sovereignty, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça held that a pending action to set aside the award was not one of the grounds for denial of recognition and enforcement. There would only be a bar to the recognition and enforcement if there were a final decision by a Brazilian court on the same questions as addressed by the arbitral tribunal and such decision had become res judicata. All the other arguments were dismissed as pertaining to the merits. Lastly, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça held that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Respondents had not had an opportunity to present their defence. The Justice Rapporteur also held that the question of standing to initiate proceedings before the Brazilian courts to set aside the award, in accordance with Decree No. 4.311/2002 (which directly incorporates the NYC into Brazilian law and is a translation of the NYC), is a question to be addressed by the court where such proceedings are initiated. Justice Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito had a different view and stated that all the questions related to the nullity of the arbitral award should have been decided by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. affirmed by : see also :
- Brazil / 28 August 2007 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others / Interlocutory Appeal 518.393-4/9-00
- Brazil / 06 November 2007 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others / Motion for Clarification 518.393-4/0-01
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=20&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 18 October 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Grain Partners SPA v Cooperativa dos Produtores Trabalhadores Rurais de Sorriso Ltda. / SEC 507
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 18 October 2006 Parties Grain Partners SPA v Cooperativa dos Produtores Trabalhadores Rurais de Sorriso Ltda. Case number SEC 507 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Grain Partners SPA (Grain Partners) entered into several contracts for the purchase and sale of soy with Cooperativa dos Produtores e Trabalhadores Urbanos e Rurais de Sorriso Ltda. – Coopergrão (Coopergrão) and Oito Exportação e Importação de Cereais e Defensivos Agrícolas Ltda. (Oito Exportação). A dispute subsequently arose and the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations Limited (FOSFA) rendered an award ordering Coopergrão and Oito Exportação (the Respondents) to pay damages. Grain Partners sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). The Respondents challenged recognition and enforcement, arguing, inter alia that, (i) a deposit is necessary to file a request for recognition and enforcement before the Brazilian Courts; (ii) the arbitration agreement was null and void because of the unconstitutionality of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act); (iii) there had been a violation of Article 4(2) of the Arbitration Act because the arbitration agreement was inserted in an contract of adhesion; (iv) the parties waived the arbitration agreement by litigating before the Brazilian courts; (v) there had been a breach of due process; (vi) the award was against public policy; and (vii) Grain Partners breached its obligations under the contract. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça granted recognition and enforcement to the arbitral award based on the Arbitration Act. It readily dismissed the arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Arbitration Act and the requirement of a deposit to file a request for recognition and enforcement. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça noted Respondents’ objections concerning breaches of Article 4 of the Arbitration Act because the arbitration agreement was not in bold letters and initialled by the Respondents as required for contract of adhesions. It held that Articles 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act (which mirror Articles V(1) and V(2) NYC) set out the parameters for courts to review arbitral awards, thus, it was not possible to review any issues pertaining to the merits in recognition and enforcement proceedings. Consequently, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça could not review the issue concerning the characterization of the agreement as a contract of adhesion. It also dismissed the argument that litigating before the Brazilian courts constituted a waiver of arbitration because the contention was unsupported by evidence. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça found that no violation of due process had occurred as Respondents were notified of all arbitral proceedings and the parties had freely decided to submit themselves to arbitration. Lastly, it dismissed the arguments concerning public policy or breach of contract because the Respondents’ allegations were based on the merits of the dispute. affirmed by : see also :
- Brazil / 20 September 2012 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Oito Grãos Exportação e Importação de Cereais Defensivos Agrícolas Ltda. v Galaxy Grain Itália SPA / Special Appeal 1.203.430
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a. The public policy exception under the Convention / §11
- V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a.Substantive public policy / §33
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=19&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 16 August 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Subway Partners C V v HTP High Technology Foods Corporation / SEC 833
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 16 August 2006 Parties Subway Partners C V v HTP High Technology Foods Corporation Case number SEC 833 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Subway Partners C V (Subway Partners) and HTP High Technology Foods Corporation S/A (HTP) entered into a franchising agreement containing an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). A dispute arose and an arbitral award was rendered, ex parte, in the United States. The award was confirmed by the District Court for the District of Connecticut. Subway Partners sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). HTP opposed recognition and enforcement, arguing that Subway Partners had not presented the original arbitration agreement or a copy of it, nor had it presented a certified copy and a sworn translation of the award as required by Article 37 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article IV(1) NYC). It further argued that there had been no consent to the arbitration agreement and that there was no evidence that HTP had been properly notified of the arbitral proceedings. It also argued that the Claimant had failed to indicate if it sought recognition and enforcement of the award or of the decision of the District Court confirming the award. Despite the Justice Rapporteur’s opinion in favour of recognition and enforcement, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça denied recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça considered that the lack of evidence demonstrating that HTP had been properly served to appear before the District Court was detrimental to the request for recognition and enforcement. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça held that a party must be served through letter rogatory in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. It also considered it material to its decision that Subway Partners had not included the Rules of the AAA in its claim. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=16&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 30 June 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Gottwald Port Technology GmbH v Rodrimar S/A Transportes Equipamentos Industriais e Armazéns Gerais / SEC 968
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 30 June 2006 Parties Gottwald Port Technology GmbH v Rodrimar S/A Transportes Equipamentos Industriais e Armazéns Gerais Case number SEC 968 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Mannesman Dematic AG (Mannesman) and Rodrimar S/A (Rodrimar) entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of a mobile harbour crane. A dispute arose after the termination of the contract and the parties went to arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The award ordered Rodrimar to pay approximately five hundred thousand euros to Mannesman. Another company, Gottwald Port Technology GmbH (Gottwald) sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Gottwald had previously executed an assignment contract with Mannesman pursuant to which Gottwald would receive the amount ordered by the arbitral award. Rodrimar objected, arguing that Gottwald did not have standing to seek recognition and enforcement because it was not a party to, or even mentioned in, the arbitral proceedings. In addition it argued that the assignment contract was not valid because it had not been notified of the assignment contract. Finally, Rodrimar argued that the arbitral tribunal had failed to apply the law chosen by the parties, rendering the award null and void. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça dismissed the claim without prejudice. The Court only reviewed the issue of standing, finding in favour of Rodrimar based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act). The Superior Tribunal de Justiça stated that notwithstanding the existence of an assignment contract, it could not see how the arbitration agreement would have created any obligation on Rodrimar to pay Gottwald, since the latter did not participate in the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, Gottwald could not seek recognition and enforcement pursuant to Article 39 of the Arbitration Act, which mirrors Article V(2) NYC. It also noted that it could not review any matter, or legal right, that was not included in the text of the arbitral award. This meant that it could not review the question of the validity of the assignment contract between Mannesman and Gottwald. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça also highlighted the fact that the purpose of recognition and enforcement proceedings was to allow enforcement of an award rendered outside of Brazil and that they were not designed to recognize and enforce an assignment contract, which is what Gottwald essentially sought. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1342&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 20 June 2006 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / Carlos Alberto de Oliveira Andrade and CA de Oliveira Andrade Comércio Importação e Exportação Ltda v Renault S/A and Renault do Brasil Comércio e Participações Ltda. / Appeal 985413-0/1
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) Date 20 June 2006 Parties Carlos Alberto de Oliveira Andrade and CA de Oliveira Andrade Comércio Importação e Exportação Ltda v Renault S/A and Renault do Brasil Comércio e Participações Ltda. Case number Appeal 985413-0/1 Source http://www.tjsp.jus.br (Official website of Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo)
Languages Portuguese Summary The Claimants were engaged in the import, sale and maintenance of Renault vehicles in Brazil. Renault S/A declared its intention to terminate its contract with the Claimants after which, the parties agreed to a “Protocol” establishing a phased out termination. Subsequently, conflicts arose from the execution of the Protocol and the parties signed a “Private Instrument for Settlement and other Agreements”, providing for arbitration pursuant to the International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Arbitration (ICC Rules). The parties commenced arbitration in New York and obtained an award. Subsequently, the Claimants initiated three different proceedings before the Brazilian courts. In the case at hand, the Claimants sought declaratory relief to the effect that the arbitral award was non-existent. The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim without prejudice due to the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Claimants appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the Brazilian courts had jurisdiction because the Respondents were domiciled in Brazil and because there was a clause in the contract electing Brazil as the forum for dispute settlement and making Brazilian law applicable to the dispute. According to the Claimants, Article V(I) NYC also established that Brazilian courts would have jurisdiction in such a case. Alternatively, the Claimants requested a declaration that the award was null and void for failing to state reasons, as was required by Brazilian law. The Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (São Paulo Court of Appeals) dismissed the claim without prejudice due to the existence of the arbitration agreement based on Article 4 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act), which has similar but not identical language to Article II (1)(2) NYC (it states: “Article 4- An arbitration clause is an agreement by which the parties to a contract undertake to submit to arbitration the disputes which may arise with respect to that contract; (1) the arbitration clause shall be in writing and it can be inserted in the main contract or in a document to which it refers”). The Tribunal de Justiça asserted that it was not possible to review the merits of the claim because there was a valid arbitration clause pursuant to Article 4 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act. It also considered that an annulment based on failure to state reasons must show an absolute absence of reasons; the brevity of reasons was not enough to allow an annulment. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1341&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 19 June 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Tremond Alloys and Metals Corp v Metaltubos Indústria e Comércio de Metais Ltda. / SEC 760
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 19 June 2006 Parties Tremond Alloys and Metals Corp v Metaltubos Indústria e Comércio de Metais Ltda. Case number SEC 760 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Tremond Alloys and Metals Corp. (Tremond) and Metaltubos Indústria e Comércio de Metais Ltda. (Metaltubos) entered into a contract for the sale of vanadium pentoxide residues. The contract contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to arbitration under the American Arbitration Association (AAA). A dispute arose and Tremond initiated arbitration proceedings in the United States and obtained a favourable award. Tremond sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) of the award before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Metaltubos opposed its recognition and enforcement, arguing that it had complied with the contract. It also argued the award was void, stating that it did not include a report describing the facts and arguments and because the tribunal had failed to state reasons for its decision. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) granted recognition and enforcement of the award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act). It concluded, based on Articles 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act (which mirror Articles V(1) and V(2) NYC), that it could only review strictly formal issues in recognition and enforcement proceedings and could not go into the merits of the dispute. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça dismissed the argument that Metaltubos had complied with the contract, as it related to the merits of the dispute. It held that a report and reasons are mandatory requirements of an award under Brazilian law. However, in this case, the award did include a report and reasons for the decision. Lastly, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça noted that Metaltubos had been notified of the commencement of the arbitral proceedings and the award was rendered ex parte due to its non-appearance. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=762&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 17 May 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos Sociedad Anónima Comercial Industrial Financeira Imobiliaria y Agropecuaria (Argentina) v Moinho Paulista Ltd (Brazil) / SEC 866
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 17 May 2006 Parties Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos Sociedad Anónima Comercial Industrial Financeira Imobiliaria y Agropecuaria (Argentina) v Moinho Paulista Ltd (Brazil) Case number SEC 866 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos Sociedad Anónima Comercial Industrial Financeira Imobiliaria y Agropecuaria (Oleaginosa) and Moinho Paulista Ltda. (Moinho Paulista) concluded 4 contracts orally for the purchase and sale of cotton. Each party was represented by different third parties when executing the contract. Oleaginosa sent confirmation telexes containing a clause providing for arbitration under the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA). Following a dispute concerning breach of the contracts, a GAFTA arbitral tribunal rendered an award in the United Kingdom in favour of Oleaginosa, which was confirmed in appellate GAFTA proceedings. Oleaginosa sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) of the award before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Moinho Paulista opposed recognition and enforcement on three different grounds: (i) there were no valid contracts since the third-party who represented Moinho Paulista had no authority to conclude contracts without Moinho Paulista subsequently ratifying its acceptance in writing; (ii) the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction because there was no arbitration agreement in writing; and (iii) Moinho Paulista’s presence in the proceedings did not show consent to the arbitration since it had raised objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça denied the request for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. It quoted from Articles 38 and 39 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article V(1)(2) NYC), and held that based on these articles the review of the arbitral award could not be based on the merits of the dispute. Subsequently, it considered that the first objection concerning the validity of the contracts pertained to the merits, and could thus not be reviewed. Concerning the second objection related to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça found that the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act) required that the arbitration agreement shall be in writing or that it could be inserted in a document referring to it. It also analyzed Article II(2) NYC to determine that the parties could have agreed to a valid arbitration agreement through an exchange of letters or telegrams. However, it considered that there was no evidence that Moinho Paulista agreed to the arbitration agreement included in the telexes because there was no signature or any other form of consent to the arbitration agreement. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça concluded that the recognition and enforcement of the award would violate Brazilian public policy because the recognition of an arbitral award is predicated upon the existence of an arbitration agreement pursuant to Article 37(II) of the Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article IV(1)(b) NYC). The Superior Tribunal de Justiça also noted that the participation of Moinho Paulista in the arbitral proceedings would have demonstrated consent to the arbitration agreement had it not raised objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement. affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=13&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 19 April 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Union Européenne de Gymnastique (UEG) v Multipole Distribuidora de Filmes Ltda. (Brazil) / SEC 874
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 19 April 2006 Parties Union Européenne de Gymnastique (UEG) v Multipole Distribuidora de Filmes Ltda. (Brazil) Case number SEC 874 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary The Union Européenne de Gymnastique (UEG) and Multipole Distribuidora de Filmes Ltda. (Multipole) concluded a contract for the acquisition and distribution of TV sport shows which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the auspices of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland. A dispute arose when UEG did not receive the full payment agreed upon under the contract. UEG initiated arbitration proceedings, in which Multipole did not participate, and obtained a favourable award. UEG then sought the recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) of the award before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Multipole opposed its recognition and enforcement arguing that it was not properly notified of the proceedings, that the lack of service of process through letter rogatory violates Brazilian public policy, that there was no available translation of the relevant Arbitration Code, and that Brazilian laws were not respected, in particular the Consumer Protection Code and the Change in Circumstances theory (“teoria da imprevisão”). The Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) granted the enforcement of the arbitral award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act). It initially cited Article 38 of the Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article V(1) NYC), dismissing Multipole’s argument that it was somehow forced to arbitrate the dispute particularly because the Respondent had not shown any evidence to support its contention. Subsequently, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça considered that the only serious objection in the Multipole’s arguments was that it was not properly notified of the arbitral proceedings and consequently unable to present its case. It held that pursuant to Article 39 “sole paragraph” of the Arbitration Act (which finds no equivalent in the NYC) there is no requirement that a party shall be served notice for arbitral proceedings through letter rogatory. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça stated that Multipole had the opportunity to present its defence because there was confirmation of several letters received by it concerning the arbitral proceedings. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=12&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 06 March 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Bouvery International S/A v Irmãos Pereira - Comercial e Exportadora Ltda. / SEC 887
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 06 March 2006 Parties Bouvery International S/A v Irmãos Pereira - Comercial e Exportadora Ltda. Case number SEC 887 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary The parties entered into a contract for the sale of 3,300 sacks of coffee. Bouvery International S/A (Bouvery) claiming that Irmãos Pereira Comercial e Exportadora Ltda. (Irmãos Pereira) had failed to comply with the contract, initiated arbitration proceedings before the Coffee and Pepper Arbitration Centre in Le Havre (France). An award was rendered in 1996 in favour of Bouvery, who then filed a request for recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) of the award before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Irmãos Pereira opposed recognition of the award on the grounds that (i) the French arbitral award was not confirmed by a French judicial court; (ii) the constitutionality of some provisions of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act) was still in question; (iii) it had not participated in the arbitral proceedings or presented its case; and (iv) there was no submission agreement (“compromisso”) prior to the constitution of the Tribunal. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça granted recognition and enforcement to the award applying the Brazilian Arbitration Act. It initially considered that, based on the record, there was no doubt regarding the pre-existence of the arbitration agreement. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça further considered that the Irmãos Pereira voluntarily decided not to participate in the arbitration despite being notified of the proceedings. It also asserted that the constitutionality of the Arbitration Act was not in doubt since the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Federal Supreme Court) had upheld the constitutionality of the law. Concerning the argument related to Article 38(III) of the Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article V(1)(b) NYC), the Superior Tribunal de Justiça held that according to Article 38(III) the burden lay on the Respondent to prove a lack of notification and it had failed to do so. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=11&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 15 February 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Plexus Cotton Limited v. Santana Têxtil S/A / SEC 967
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 15 February 2006 Parties Plexus Cotton Limited v. Santana Têxtil S/A Case number SEC 967 Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary Plexus Cotton Limited (Plexus) and Santana Têxtil S/A (Santana) entered into two contracts for the purchase and sale of cotton. One of the contracts had a clause for arbitration at the Liverpool Cotton Association in the United Kingdom. Santana did not sign either of the contracts. Santana rejected the goods, claiming that the delivery was late and that the quality was inferior to what was contracted for. Plexus initiated arbitration proceedings after Santana rejected the goods and obtained an award ordering Santana to pay approximately two hundred and thirty thousand US dollars for breach of contract. Plexus sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Santana raised objections arguing that i) the issue of recognition and enforcement had already been previously decided by the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Federal Supreme Court) and it had become res judicata; ii) there was no valid arbitration agreement due to the absence of unequivocal consent in writing to arbitrate because the contract was not signed and, consequently, the arbitral award violated Article 39(II) of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Superior Tribunal de Justiça rejected the request for recognition and enforcement based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act). The majority of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça rejected the objection that the decision had become res judicata, which, if so, would have led to the dismissal of the claim without prejudice. It first took note of Article 4(1) of the Arbitration Act, which has similar but not identical language to Article II(1)(2) NYC (it provides: “Article 4- An arbitration clause is an agreement by which the parties to a contract undertake to submit to arbitration the disputes which may arise with respect to that contract. (1) The arbitration clause shall be in writing and it can be inserted in the main contract or in a document to which it refers”). Based on this provision the Superior Tribunal de Justiça found that there was no agreement to arbitrate because there was no consent in writing, as the contract containing the arbitration agreement was unsigned. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça also added that under Brazilian law there is no equivalent to the English rule which recognizes an arbitration agreement in an unsigned contract. It also held that the lack of explicit consent to the arbitration agreement violated Brazilian public policy under Article 39(II) of the Arbitration Act. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1338&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFJoaquim T. de Paiva Muniz ; Ana Tereza Palhares Basilio / Arbitration law of Brazil: practice and procedure Chapter 9 – Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards / Juris Publishing, 2006, at 171 - 2006
Author(s) Joaquim T. de Paiva Muniz ; Ana Tereza Palhares Basilio Source Juris Publishing, 2006, at 171 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions Brazil Worldcat Number Worldcat : 76809450 ISBN 978-1-929446-98-8 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=2953&opac_view=6 Brazil / 18 May 2005 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / L’Aiglon S/A v Têxtil União S/A / SEC 856
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) Date 18 May 2005 Parties L’Aiglon S/A v Têxtil União S/A Case number SEC 856 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça)
Languages Portuguese Summary A Swiss company (L’Aiglon) sold African cotton to a Brazilian company (Têxtil União) pursuant to two contracts containing an arbitration clause providing for Liverpool Cotton Association (LCA) arbitration. A dispute arose and L’Aiglon initiated arbitration proceedings in June 2001. Both companies appealed the LCA’s award and, by final award, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of L’Aiglon. In March 2003, L’Aiglon sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) of the award in Brazil before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). Têxtil União opposed the recognition and enforcement of the award arguing that it did not consent to the arbitration because the arbitration agreement was contained in an exchange of letters and Têxtil União had not given its explicit and unequivocal consent. It argued that the arbitration agreement was not valid because the contract was not signed. Têxtil União also stated that the award was not enforceable because the arbitral tribunal did not analyze factual circumstances (whether the goods were transferred to third parties) and because the basis for calculating damages was against Brazilian public policy. L’Aiglon replied that neither the Brazilian Arbitration Act nor Article II NYC required the parties’ signature as a requirement for arbitration agreement to be valid. L’Aiglon contended that Têxtil União participated in the arbitration proceedings and presented its defence before the LCA. It added that Têxtil União had not proven that the arbitration agreement was void, as required by Article V(1)(a) NYC. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça granted recognition and enforcement to the award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça considered that enforcement may be denied on the grounds set forth in Article 38 of the Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article V(1) NYC). The Superior Tribunal de Justiça also relied on Article II NYC to determine if there was a valid arbitration agreement despite the lack of a signature. It noted that the lack of correspondence between the parties, establishing their agreement to arbitrate, might have indicated that recognition and enforcement should not be granted. However, considering that Têxtil União had participated in the arbitral proceedings and presented its defence without making any objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça held that Têxtil União had consented to and recognized the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça also considered it material to its decision that the overall practice in international commerce is to submit disputes to arbitration. Finally, it considered that Têxtil União could have raised objections to the arbitral proceedings, but since it decided to argue the merits of the dispute, it could no longer deny its consent to arbitrate. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça considered all the other arguments as pertaining to the merits, which, it held, could not be reviewed in recognition and enforcement proceedings. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=8&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDFSelma M. Ferreira Lemes / A Arbitragem e a Vigência no Brasil da Convenção de Nova Iorque sobre Reconhecimento e Execução de Sentenças Arbitrais Estrangeiras [Translation: Arbitration and the entry into force of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Brazil] / 17 Revista Justilex 54 (2003) - 2003
Author(s) Selma M. Ferreira Lemes Source 17 Revista Justilex 54 (2003) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions Brazil ISBN 978-90-411-1274-3 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=2951&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
External ResourceExternal ResourceArnoldo Wald / La ratification de la convention de New York par le Brésil / 2003(1) Revue de l’arbitrage 91 - 2003
Author(s) Arnoldo Wald Source 2003(1) Revue de l’arbitrage 91 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions Brazil Worldcat Number Worldcat : 773490766 ISBN 978-90-411-1274-3 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=2952&opac_view=6 Carlos Nehring Netto / Brazil and the New York Convention - A Case of Adherence by Osmosis / Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention, ICCA Congress Series No. 9, Paris, A.J. van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International, 257 (1999) - 1999
Author(s) Carlos Nehring Netto Source Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention, ICCA Congress Series No. 9, Paris, A.J. van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International, 257 (1999) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions Brazil Worldcat Number Worldcat : 42296224 ISBN 978-90-411-1274-3 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=2950&opac_view=6 E/CONF.26/L.37/Rev.1 - Brazil: amendment to article 4 of the text proposed by Working Party III (E/CONF.26/L.43)- 03/06/1958
Date 03/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.5.Further Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations - 29 May -3 June 1958 Country Brazil Applicable NYC Provisions V Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3362&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 29/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.5.Further Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations - 29 May -3 June 1958 Country Brazil Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3361&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDFE/2822 - Report by the Secretary-General, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 31 Jan 1956- 31/01/1956
Comments Annex I: Comments by Governements (General observations and then comments on each article) Annex II: Comments by Non-Governmental Organizations (General observations and then comments on each article). Date 31/01/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Austria | Belgium | Brazil | China | Denmark | France | India | Japan | Korea | Lebanon | Mexico | Philippines | Switzerland Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English | French | Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3297&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date of accession 7 June 2002 Instrument of accession Presidential Decree 4.311 of 24 July 2002
Date of entry into force 5 September 2002 Reservations No reservation
National Arbitration Act in force Law No. 9.307 of 23 September 1996, as amended by Law No. 13.129 of 26 May 2015 [Original in Portuguese]
Domestic Court with jurisdiction over recognition and enforcement of foreign award Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice)
Author(s) and Contributor(s) Associação Brasileira de Estudantes de Arbitragem (ABEArb)
Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo
Pedro Martini (Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)
Joana Holzmeister e Castro (Lefosse Advogados)
Andre Marini (Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes)More information... https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=11&menu=565&opac_view=-1