Available documents (2221)
9. The grounds for refusal under article V do not include an erroneous decision in law or in fact by the arbitral tribunal. A court seized with an application for recognition and enforcement under the Convention may not review the merits of the arbitral tribunal’s decision. This principle is unanimously confirmed in the case law12 and commentary13 on the New York Convention.
12. See e.g. Trading company (Israel) v. Buyer (Germany), Oberlandesgericht, Cologne, Germany, 23 April 2004, XXX Y.B. COM. ARB. 557 (2005); Kotraco, Inc. v. V/O Rosvneshtorg, Moscow District Court, Russia, 31 October 1995, XXIII Y.B. COM. ARB. 735 (1998); AB Götaverken (Sweden) v. General National Maritime Transport Company (Libya), Supreme Court, Sweden, 13 August 1979, VI Y.B. COM. ARB. 237 (1981); Generica Ltd. v. Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc. et al, District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Illinois, United States of America, 18 September 1996, XXII Y.B. COM. ARB. 1029 (1997); Xiamen Xinjindi Group Ltd. v. Eton Properties Ltd., High Court, Hong Kong, 14 June 2012, HCLL 13/2011.
13. See e.g. FOUCHARD GAILLARD GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION (E. Gaillard, J. Savage eds., 1999), at 983, para. 1693; GARY B. BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION (2014), at 3707; ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958: TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION (1981), at 269-273; JULIAN LEW AND LOUKAS MISTELIS, COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION (2003), para. 26-66; NIGEL BLACKABY ET AL., REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (2015), para. 11.56; Pieter Sanders, A Twenty Years’ Review of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 13 INTERNATIONAL LAW 269 (1979); Michael Hwang and Amy Lai, Do Egregious Errors Amount to a Breach of Public Policy?, 71 ARBITRATION 1 (2005).
See in context