Available documents (1115)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
United States / 26 September 1977 / U.S. District Court, Northern District of California / Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Uranex / C-77-0123
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Date 26 September 1977 Parties Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Uranex Case number C-77-0123 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source 451 F.Supp. 1044 Languages English Summary Carolina Power & Light Company (“CP&L”), a North Carolina public utility company, entered into a contract with Uranex, a French groupement d'interet economique, for the delivery of uranium concentrates to CP&L. The contract provided for arbitration in New York. The arbitration proceedings had already commenced in New York when CP&L appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and made an ex parte attachment of a debt owed by a third party to Uranex. Uranex sought to have the attachment quashed, arguing that it would be inconsistent with the NYC for the court to maintain the attachment pending the arbitration. The Court dismissed Uranex’s argument and held that it would not be contrary to the NYC for the court to maintain the attachment pending arbitration. In so holding, it noted that pursuant to Article II(2) NYC and Section 206 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which implements Article II(2) NYC, nothing in the NYC bars pre-award attachment, and therefore it is allowable insofar as it is permissible under state or federal law. The Court concluded that there is no indication in either the text or the apparent policies of the NYC that prejudgment attachment was precluded. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=514&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 04 April 1977 Parties Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd v. Chemtex Fibres Inc and ors Applicable NYC Provisions I | II Source AIR 1978 Bom 106; (1979) 81 BOMLR 49 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Chemtex Fibres Inc (“Chemtex”), together with its two subsidiaries – the second and third defendant – entered into a contract with Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd (“Indian Chemicals”), guaranteeing the performance of two other contracts which the second and third defendant had entered into with Indian Chemicals. The guarantee provided for arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) in London. The contract entered into by the second defendant and Indian Chemicals was for the supply of machinery, equipment and technical information for the installations for a polyester plant and provided for arbitration under the ICC in London as well. The contract entered into by the third defendant and Indian Chemicals was for the supply of machinery, equipment and technical information required for the implementation of the project and provided for arbitration in India. A dispute arose and Indian Chemicals sued Chemtex and the second and third defendant before the High Court of Bombay. The three defendants sought to have the proceeding stayed in favour or arbitration pursuant to Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”) (mirroring Article II(3) NYC). The High Court of Bombay rejected the defendants’ application, refusing to order a stay of the legal proceeding before it. The High Court remarked that the 1961 Act had been implemented to give effect to the NYC and had as its purpose the speedy settlement of disputes through arbitration. The Court referred to Section 2 of the 1961 Act (incorporating, in modified language, Articles I and II NYC), which it read in tandem with Articles I and II NYC. According to the Court, Section 2 of the 1961 Act applies when four conditions are satisfied: (i) the difference is out of a relationship considered as “commercial under the law in force in India”; (ii) the “foreign award” was made on or after 11 October 1960; (iii) the award is made in pursuance of an agreement in writing to which the NYC applies; and, (iv) the award is made in a territory that the Central Government of India has notified as also applying the NYC. Turning to Section 3 of the 1961 Act, the High Court considered that it applies when (i) there is an agreement to which Article II NYC applies; (ii) a person party to such an agreement, or a person claiming through him, commences a legal proceeding before a court against the other party to the agreement; (iii) the dispute falls within the scope of the legal proceeding; and, (iv) the other party has not “filed any written statement or has not taken any other step in the proceeding” before making the application to stay. Once these conditions are satisfied, the Court noted, a court has no discretion but to stay the legal proceeding before it, unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Applying the facts of the case, the High Court considered the three contracts to be “inextricably linked” and “commercial” in nature. In making the latter point, the Court stipulated that the term “commercial” must be given a liberal construction. Nonetheless, the Court stressed, characterising a contract as “commercial” was not suffice for Section 2 of the 1961 Act to apply: according to the Court, the relationship must be considered commercial “under the law in force in India”. This language, the Court reasoned, requires that it be “established that [the relationship] is commercial by virtue of a provision of law or an operative legal principle in force in India”. Further to that, the High Court held that Section 3 could not apply as it only made reference to a person commencing legal action when that person is a party to “an agreement”. This, the Court reasoned, indicated that Section 3 of the 1961 Act has no application in a situation where there is a “plurality of agreements [which] converge on disputes and differences which arise out of a single transaction or series of transactions”. Commenting, obiter, on the other conditions of Section 3, the Court found that the arbitration agreements were capable of being performed and that the dispute brought before it fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the guarantee. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1373&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 12 February 1976 Case number III ZR 42/74 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | II | VII(1) | V(1)(c) | II(2) | II(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof Languages English Summary In relation to a dispute regarding a sale purchase agreement for lard, the Seller obtained a favourable award from the Arbitration Commission of the Chamber of Commerce of the Romanian People’s Republic. The Buyer had refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings, arguing that the 6-month time limitation contained in the arbitration clause had lapsed. The Seller subsequently sought enforcement of its award in Germany, but the Landgericht (Regional Court) Frankfurt refused enforcement. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt confirmed the refusal and annulled the award, finding that the arbitrators had breached the terms of the arbitration agreement regarding the 6-month statute of limitations (giving rise to a non-enforcement ground under Article V(1)(c) NYC) and that the arbitral tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction constituted an “extreme case” justifying both refusal of enforcement and annulment. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) did not agree with the Oberlandesgericht’s decision on enforcement and remanded the case back to the Oberlandesgericht for reconsideration. It also reversed the annulment of the award, holding that an award falling under the NYC i.e. made in the territory of another Contracting State, may be annulled by a German court only if the award had been made pursuant to German law (which was not the case here). The Bundesgerichtshof held that the parties had validly concluded an arbitration agreement in writing as required by Articles II(1) and II(2) NYC. Although the arbitration clause was only contained in the General Conditions for the Sale and Delivery, it was inserted by the parties’ representatives in the signed contract itself, or at least attached to it as an exhibit. However, in relation to the scope of the arbitration agreement and the six-month time limit, the Bundesgerichtshof held that the arbitration clause was ambiguous and that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal after the six-month period was not explicitly excluded. The Bundesgerichtshof held that the facts discussed by the Oberlandesgericht did not allow for the conclusion that the arbitral tribunal had arbitrarily – and without any basis in the contractual provisions – assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=926&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Supreme Court Date 17 June 1974 Parties Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Company Case number 73-781 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) Source 417 U.S. 506 Languages English Summary Scherk, a German citizen, and Alberto-Culver, a US company, entered into a contract for the transfer of the ownership of Scherk's enterprises to Alberto-Culver, along with all rights held by these enterprises to trademarks in cosmetic goods. The contract contained an arbitration agreement which provided for International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitration in Paris. Alberto-Culver commenced an action for damages and other relief in Federal District Court in Illinois. In response, Scherk, filed a motion inter alia to stay the action pending arbitration in Paris pursuant to the agreement of the parties. The District Court granted a preliminary order enjoining Scherk from proceeding with arbitration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Scherk filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, found that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and remanded the case to lower courts. In so holding, the Court found that the United States’ adoption and ratification of the NYC and its Article II(1) NYC provide strong evidence of congressional policy to enforce international arbitration agreements. It further held that the agreement of the parties to arbitrate any dispute arising out of their international commercial transaction was to be respected and enforced by the federal courts in accordance with the explicit provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=654&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe) Date 13 March 1973 Case number 8 U 129/72 Applicable NYC Provisions V | II | V(1)(a) | II(3) Summary A German company and a Dutch company concluded a contract containing a clause calling for the resolution of disputes that could not be amicably settled by an arbitral tribunal of the German-Dutch Chamber of Commerce. The clause specified that if the decision was not acceptable to either Party, an ordinary court of law, to be designated by the Claimant, would be competent. The German Party brought an action before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Heidelberg, which held the Dutch party (who did not appear during the proceedings) liable. The Dutch party took recourse before the same Court arguing that the dispute should first have been submitted to arbitration. The Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Higher Regional Court) confirmed the decision of the Landgericht which denied the stay of proceedings. The Landgericht had considered that under Article V(1)(a) NYC, the Parties have the freedom to choose the law applicable to the arbitration agreement and, absent any indication of applicable law by the Parties, the law of the country in which the award "will be made" applies. In the present case, the Parties did not designate any law, nor could the law of the country in which the award was to be made be determined because the they had not provided for a place of arbitration. Pursuant to the Rules of the German-Dutch Chamber of Commerce, the arbitration could take place either in Germany or in the Netherlands to the effect that either German or Dutch law would be applicable. Thus, the Court concluded that the validity had to be assessed under both legal systems. The Court held that under both German and Dutch law an arbitration agreement is valid only if it is in accordance with the will of the parties to have the arbitral tribunal decide their dispute in lieu of a state court. According to the Court, the same idea that an arbitration agreement is valid only if it excludes ordinary court proceedings underlies Article II(3) NYC. As a result, since the present clause made it possible to commence a court action, there was no valid arbitration agreement, but rather an agreement to attempt to conciliate. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=198&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original UnavailableAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg (Court of First Instance of Strasbourg) Date 09 October 1970 Parties Animalfeeds International Company v. Société Becker Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | IV Summary Various arbitral awards were rendered in 1967 in Hamburg in favor of Animalfeeds International. An application for recognition and enforcement of said awards was filed before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg (First Instance Court of Strasbourg). The losing party (A. Becker et Cie) objected to the enforcement of the awards by arguing that the application was not admissible since Animalfeeds failed to disclose the documents required by Article IV NYC, i.e. the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy and the original agreement under which the parties undertook to submit to arbitration their dispute or a duly certified copy thereof. It contended further that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg should decline jurisdiction to hear this matter since the arbitral tribunal had ruled without a signed arbitration agreement. Lastly, it claimed that the arbitral awards were not res judicata in the country in which they were rendered. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg allowed enforcement of the arbitral awards in France. It noted that that Animalfeeds had produced all of the documents required by Articles II and IV NYC. It then held that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. As to the fact that the arbitral awards are not res judicata in Germany, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg reasoned that the NYC does not require that the award be declared enforceable in both the country where it was made and in the country where such award is sought to be relied upon, but simply provides that the award should be binding on the parties, which was the case here. It added that the awards were not contrary to French public policy. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=109&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original UnavailableAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 25 May 1970 Case number VII ZR 157/68 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof Languages English Summary A German Buyer sent a purchase order to the Seller, an Austrian spinning and weaving factory, referring to earlier phone conversations and requesting delivery of certain products. The Seller confirmed the orders by letters containing the Seller’s terms and conditions, which provided for arbitration before the Court of Arbitration of the Vienna Commodity Exchange. The Buyer did not reply or otherwise comment on the letters. Subsequently a dispute arose and the Seller initiated arbitration proceedings, obtaining a favorable award. The Seller sought enforcement before a first instance court in Germany, which was granted. The Buyer appealed the decision to the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Cologne, but was unsuccessful. The Buyer then appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court), seeking a declaration that the arbitral award could not be recognized in Germany. The Bundesgerichtshof rejected the Buyer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the lower courts granting enforcement. It found that pursuant to Section 1044 of the German Civil Procedure Code and Article 12(1) of the German-Austrian Agreement on Civil and Commercial Matters of June 6, 1959, enforcement was subject to the NYC and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of April 21, 1961 (ECICA). The Bundesgerichtshof concluded that it was therefore necessary, as per Article II(2) NYC and Art. 1(2)(a) of the ECICA, that the arbitral award be based on an arbitration agreement in writing. However, it noted that Article 1(2)(a) of the ECICA, which had precedence over Article II(2) NYC as the more recent of the two provisions, provided that “in relations between States whose laws do not require that an arbitration agreement be made in writing, any arbitration agreement concluded in the form authorized by [such] laws” was sufficient. The Bundesgerichtshof found that under certain conditions German and Austrian law accepted arbitration agreements which were not in writing. It found that it needed to assess the arbitration agreement under German law and stated that the letters from the Seller to the Buyer, containing the Seller’s terms and conditions, including an arbitration clause, qualified a commercial letter of confirmation (kaufmännisches Bestätigungsschreiben). It held that since the Buyer had not raised any objections to the letters, and to the arbitration clause contained therein, the arbitration agreement had become binding upon the Buyer. In addition, it held that since both parties were merchants, with the arbitration agreement being a commercial matter between them, the arbitration agreement was not required to be in written form under Section 1027 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Code. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1337&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 28 October 1969 Parties VO Tractor Export, Moscow v. MS Tarapore & Company and anor Case number 1971 AIR 1; 1970 SCR (3) 53; 1969 SCC (3) 562 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source http://judis.nic.in (website of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary VO Tractor Export, Moscow (“Tractor Export”) entered into a contract with MS Tarapore & Company (“Tarapore”) which provided for arbitration in Moscow, under the auspices of the USSR Chamber of Commerce. A dispute arose and Tarapore commenced legal action against Tractor Export before the High Court of Madras. Tractor Export initiated an arbitration proceeding according to the terms of the arbitration agreement and also filed an application to stay the legal action before the High Court of Madras, pursuant to Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”). The High Court of Madras dismissed Tractor Export’s application. Tarapore appealed the decision of the High Court, arguing that Section 3 of the 1961 Act could be invoked by a party to an arbitration agreement only if that party had submitted the dispute to the arbitration agreement before the commencement of the legal action. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Tarapore, holding that the action commenced by Tarapore could not be stayed because Section 3 of the 1961 Act required a submission of the dispute to the arbitral tribunal before a legal proceeding could be stayed in order to be referred to arbitration. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court noted that the 1961 Act was passed to give effect to the NYC. Referring to Article II NYC, the Court remarked that it “imposes a duty on the court of a contracting state when seized of such an action to refer the parties to arbitration”. The Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the 1961 Act must be read in consonance with Article II NYC. Ramaswami J dissented from the majority’s judgment, holding that Article II NYC imposed a duty to a court to refer a matter to arbitration when there is an arbitration agreement. According to Ramaswami J, any doubt as to the meaning of the term “submission” in Section 3 should be resolved in favour of a reading which does not restrict the obligation under Article II NYC. The judge reasoned that a different interpretation would be contrary to the avowed object of the 1961 Act, which was to give effect to the NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1386&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Landgericht Bremen Date 08 June 1967 Case number 11-OH 11/1966 Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | II(2) | V(1)(a) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Landgericht Bremen Languages English Summary In relation to a sales contract, the Seller sent a confirmation letter to the Buyer, which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration at the Court of Arbitration of the International Wool Textile Organization (IWTO) in Paris. The Buyer, in turn, sent its own confirmation letter to the Seller referring to the application of the conditions of the Association of Wool Commerce of Bremen. After a dispute arose, the Seller initiated arbitration proceedings with the Court of Arbitration of the IWTO and obtained a favorable award. The Buyer had refused to participate in the proceedings, contending that the parties had agreed to arbitration under the rules of the Association of Wool Commerce of Bremen rather than those of the IWTO. The Seller sought enforcement of the award in Germany. The Landgericht (Regional Court) Bremen declared the award enforceable finding that the award was binding on the parties as the law of the seat excluded any possibility of appeal. Further, the Landgericht held that enforcement could not be refused under Article V(1)(a) NYC since the parties had exchanged letters after the dispute arose concurring on the competence of the arbitral institution which had eventually issued the award. Moreover, the Landgericht held that the conclusion of the arbitration agreement by way of an exchange of letters fulfilled the form requirements under Article II(2) NYC. Finally, the Landgericht also found that the award did not violate German public policy under Section 1044(2) No. 2 German Civil Procedure Code and that the Buyer’s right to be heard under Section 1044(2) No. 4 German Civil Procedure Code had also not been violated since it had been the Buyer’s own decision not to take part in the proceedings. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=916&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
11 th meeting [E/CONF.26/SR.11 - E/2704/Rev.1, E/2822 and Add.1-6, E/CONF.26/2, 6/3 and Add.1, 26/4, 26/7, E/CONF.26/L.6-L.31]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 27 May 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions 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) | VI Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3403&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 28 May 1958, at 11.45 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | VI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3404&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 28 May 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VI Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3405&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 29 May 1958, at 11.45 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3406&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 3 June 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3409&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 5 June 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | XII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3413&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Monday, 9 June 1958, at 3.30 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3415&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 10 June 1958, at 10.15 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(b) | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3416&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Friday, 23 May 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(2)(b) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3399&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Monday, 26 May 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3401&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 09/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.11. Text of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as Provisionally Approved by Drafting Committee 6-9 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3389&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 06/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.10. Text of Articles Adopted by the Conference: 4-6 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions II Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3386&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 06/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.11. Text of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as Provisionally Approved by Drafting Committee 6-9 June 1958 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) | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3388&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 05/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.8. Text Additional Protocol on the Validity of Arbitral Agreements Submitted by the Working Party No. 2 - 5 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions II Language(s) French | English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3372&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 05/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.9. Amendments by Governmental Delegations to the Drafts Submitted by the Working Parties and Further Suggested Drafts 3-5 June 1958 Country Sweden Applicable NYC Provisions II Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3375&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 05/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.9. Amendments by Governmental Delegations to the Drafts Submitted by the Working Parties and Further Suggested Drafts 3-5 June 1958 Country Netherlands Applicable NYC Provisions II Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3376&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 03/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.9. Amendments by Governmental Delegations to the Drafts Submitted by the Working Parties and Further Suggested Drafts 3-5 June 1958 Country Yugoslavia Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1)(d) Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3373&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 03/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.9. Amendments by Governmental Delegations to the Drafts Submitted by the Working Parties and Further Suggested Drafts 3-5 June 1958 Country Belgium Applicable NYC Provisions II Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3374&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 02/06/1958 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 France | Netherlands Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(b) Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3365&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 28/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.2. Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations : 21 -28 May 1958 Country Israel | Netherlands Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(c) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3354&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
