Generic terms
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Guide
Available documents (765)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Germany / 18 January 1990 / Bundesgerichtshof / III ZR 269/88
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 18 January 1990 Case number III ZR 269/88 Applicable NYC Provisions I | V | I(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof Languages English Summary The parties concluded a contract for the sale of barley. A dispute arose and the Buyer initiated arbitration proceedings with the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA), which issued two awards ordering the Seller to pay damages to the Buyer. The Seller sought to have the awards annulled by the High Court of Justice in London but was unsuccessful. The Buyer sought enforcement of the award before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg. The Seller objected to the enforcement, arguing that the arbitral proceedings had been conducted deficiently since a third person had been involved as consultant in the oral hearing and the writing of the award. In addition, the Seller alleged that false testimony and insufficient factual statements by the Buyer had drawn an incorrect picture of the economic situation and that the arbitral tribunal had violated the Seller’s right to be heard. The Landgericht granted the enforcement of the first award in its entirety and part of the second award. The Seller unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the Landgericht to the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Hamburg. The Seller then appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court). The Bundesgerichtshof confirmed the decision of the lower courts, stating that enforcement was subject to the NYC and Section 1044 of the German Civil Procedure Code, based on which it saw no impediments to granting enforcement. The Bundesgerichtshof stated that it did not need to decide whether the application should be assessed in accordance with Section 1044 of the German Civil Procedure Code or the NYC, since either would lead to enforcement being granted. The Bundesgerichtshof stated that both awards fulfilled the requirements of Section 1044(1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Procedure Code and Article I(1) NYC, since, as the Oberlandesgericht had stated, the arbitral awards had become binding upon the parties as they could no longer be challenged before an arbitral tribunal or state court. The Bundesgerichtshof held that recognition of the arbitral awards would not lead to a result that was in obvious contradiction with fundamental principles of German law (Section 1044(2) German Civil Procedure Code and Article V(2)(a) [sic] NYC). In this context, the Bundesgerichtshof found that the involvement of a legal consultant in the proceedings, by the tribunal, did not constitute a public policy violation since such a violation could not simply be assumed on the grounds of a deviation of a foreign arbitral procedure from mandatory domestic procedural law. It reasoned that a divergence was only relevant when it violated international public policy, which was a less restrictive standard for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards as compared to the regime for the recognition of domestic arbitral awards. According to the Bundesgerichtshof, the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award would only be refused if the arbitral proceedings had a severe defect that touched upon the fundamental basis of public and economic life, which was not the case here. With respect to the Seller’s contention that the arbitral tribunal had not appreciated that the Buyer did not have the necessary funds to secure the purchase price claim by way of a letter of credit, the Bundesgerichtshof held that this argument had already been raised before the arbitral tribunal and could therefore not be brought at the enforcement stage. It based this conclusion on the fact that the existence of grounds for revision under Section 580 of the German Civil Procedure Code, which would generally imply violations of international public policy, could no longer be raised in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award if the underlying facts had already been raised in the arbitral proceedings. The Bundesgerichtshof also rejected the alleged violation of the Seller’s right to be heard under Article 1044(2) No. 4 of the German Civil Procedure Code and Article V(1)(b) NYC. It held that, even if the tribunal had not addressed all of the Seller’s arguments, this did not violate the Seller’s right to be heard since an arbitral tribunal does not have to discuss its position vis-à-vis all of the parties’ arguments, rather, it is sufficient that the arbitral tribunal discusses the arguments that underlie its reasoning in the award. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1335&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Finland Court Finland, Supreme Court Date 27 February 1989 Parties Bankruptcy estate of Kommandiittiyhtiö Finexim O. Ivanoff (Finexim) and Ferromet Aussenhandelsunternehmen Case number S88/310 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source www.finlex.fi Languages English Summary Ferromet Aussenhandelsunternehmen (Ferromet) sold Kommandiittiyhtiö Finexim O. Ivanoff (Finexim) steel plates pursuant to five Sales Agreements including provisions on the reservation of the title to the goods. An arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the Court of Arbitration of the Czechoslovakian Chamber of Industry and Commerce, was included in the General Conditions of Export of the Sales Agreements. Finexim went bankrupt before the purchase price was paid and a dispute arose when Ferromet unsuccessfully requested the recession of the goods. On 27 February 1986, an award was rendered in Czechoslovakia in favor of Ferromet, who subsequently sought enforcement in Finland. Finexim’s bankruptcy estate opposed the action for enforcement on the grounds that the award was rendered against the bankrupt company instead of the bankruptcy estate and would therefore result in a different outcome than if the dispute had been decided in accordance with mandatory Finnish bankruptcy legislation, and enforcement would therefore be against Finnish public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b) NYC. The bankruptcy estate also argued that the tribunal had decided issues outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, which constituted a ground for non-enforcement under Article V(1)(c) NYC. Furthermore, Finexim’s bankruptcy estate argued that the enforcement of the award should be refused pursuant to Article V(2)(a) NYC because it would determine the issue of what is included in the bankruptcy estate, a question which is not arbitrable under Finnish bankruptcy law, which it argued constituted a further ground for non-enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC. Tampereen maistraatti (Tampere Register Office) decided that the award should be enforced, and rejected the objections that the dispute was governed by Finnish bankruptcy law and that the award decided issues outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. It further reasoned that the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement set forth in Articles V(2)(a) and V(2)(b) NYC did not exist in the present case, making the award enforceable. Finexim’s bankruptcy estate appealed at the Turun hovioikeus (Turku Court of Appeals), which affirmed the decision of Tampereen maistraatti, and then appealed the decision to the Korkein oikeus (Supreme Court). The Supreme Court of Finland affirmed the decision of Turun hovioikeus, reasoning that the enforceability of an arbitral award against a bankruptcy estate should be assessed pursuant to territorial jurisdiction under Finnish law. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the bankruptcy estate had sold the goods regardless of the arbitral claimant’s demand to separate the goods from the bankruptcy estate, the award concerned a debt of the bankruptcy estate and was therefore enforceable. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1561&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Date 26 January 1989 Case number 6 U 71/88 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(b) Source OLG Hamburg Languages English Summary The parties concluded a contract for the delivery of soybean flour providing for Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) arbitration in London. The United States placed an embargo on the merchandise. The Buyer accepted partial delivery of the goods, but refused to take delivery of the rest of the cargo. The Seller initiated arbitration proceedings. The arbitral tribunal denied the claim and granted the Buyer’s counterclaim. The award was confirmed by the GAFTA Board of Appeal. The Seller’s challenge before the High Court in London was dismissed while the Buyer’s request for leave to enforce before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg was granted. The Seller appealed. The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) confirmed the decision of the Landgericht and dismissed the Buyer’s objections based on Articles V(2)(b) and V(1)(b) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht held that the award did not breach German public policy by obliging the Seller alone to bear the consequences of the U.S. embargo because the Seller had failed to demonstrate and prove that it was actually inhibited by the embargo from fulfilling its contractual obligations. It also held that by granting compound interest to the Buyer the award did not breach German public policy because the remedy was allowed by the law of the seat i.e. English law. It also dismissed the Seller’s allegation that the award was made in breach of its right to be heard because it had not been properly informed about the existence of the Buyer’s counterclaims during the arbitration. The Seller had various opportunities to bring these objections before the GAFTA Board of Appeal or before the London High Court but had failed to do so. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=920&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunale Federale (Federal Tribunal) Date 12 January 1989 Parties X S.A. v. Y Ltd. Case number 5P.249/1988 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Tribunale Federale
Languages English Summary X, a Swiss company, entered into a sales agreement with Y, a British company, which provided for arbitration in Great Britain. The contract was not signed by the parties but by a broker, acting as mediator. Following a dispute regarding the delivery of goods, Y initiated arbitration proceedings, which were later suspended when the parties agreed upon a new sale and by way of an addendum to the sales agreement. X failed to deliver the goods under the addendum and Y pursued arbitration, obtaining an award in its favor. Upon Y’s request, a payment order was issued in Switzerland, to which X raised an objection (opposizione). The objection was dismissed successively by both the Segretaria Assessore della Pretura di Lugano (Assessor Secretary of the First Instance Court of Lugano) and the Camera di Esecuzione e Fallimenti del Tribunale d’Appello (Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal). X appealed the decision of the Tribunale d’Appello, arguing that pursuant to Article II(1) and II(2) NYC it was not bound by the arbitration clause because it had not been sent the sales agreement signed by the broker, and had never consented in writing to the arbitration clause contained therein. X also claimed that the award could not be relied upon since (i) X had been unable to present its case, constituting a breach of Article V(1)(b) NYC (ii) the arbitrator appointed by Y had been partial, and (iii) the award was contrary to Swiss public policy as the parties had not had any influence on the composition of the arbitral tribunal given that the arbitration rules required arbitrators to be members of a certain association. The Tribunale Federale Svizzero (Federal Tribunal) dismissed the appeal, thereby dismissing the objection to the payment order (rigetto definitivo). The Tribunale Federale held that the parties had confirmed their consent to the arbitration clause by stating in the addendum that the terms and conditions of the sales agreement were to remain in force. It also found that X had received written notifications of the arbitration and had therefore been fully able to present its case. After noting that issues regarding an arbitrators partiality were governed by Articles V(1)(b) and V(2)(b) NYC and Swiss law, it found that X had failed to produce any evidence in support of its claim. Finally, the Tribunale Federale ruled that the arbitration rules governed the appointment of arbitrators, and it was not contrary to Swiss public policy that the arbitrators were required to be members of a certain association. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1290&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York Date 27 October 1988 Parties Geotech Lizenz A.G. v. Evergreen Systems, Inc. Case number CV 88–1406 Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2)(b) Languages English Summary Geotech, a Swiss company, entered into a partnership agreement with Evergreen, an American company. The partnership agreement referred to a license agreement which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the rules of the Zurich Chamber of Commerce. A dispute arose and the parties allegedly entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). Subsequently, Geotech commenced arbitration and obtained a favorable award. Geotech applied for recognition and enforcement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Evergreen resisted enforcement, arguing that: (i) the arbitration agreement was “invalid” pursuant to Article V(1)(a) NYC because it had been superseded by the Settlement Agreement; (ii) the arbitrator decided matters that were beyond the scope of the arbitration pursuant to Article V(1)(c) NYC; (iii) Evergreen was not given proper notice pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC; and (iv) enforcement of the award would be against public policy pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC in light of arguments (i), (ii) (iii) and (iv) above. The District Court granted Geotech’s petition for enforcement of the arbitral award. The Court found that the requirements of Article IV NYC had been fulfilled and that Geotech submitted certified copies of the award and the agreement. The Court found no basis under the NYC to refuse enforcement of the award. First, the Court rejected the contention that the Settlement Agreement superseded the license agreement and rendered the arbitration agreement invalid under Article V(1)(a) NYC, finding that the parties had in fact not settled their disputes. Second, the Court found that Evergreen had been given adequate notice of the arbitration proceedings as it had been informed of every stage of the arbitration process and was given an adequate opportunity to participate within the meaning of Article V(1)(b) NYC. Third, the Court rejected Evergreen’s public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) NYC, holding that such a defense would only be applicable if enforcement of the award violated “the most basic notions of morality and justice” of the forum where enforcement was sought. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1155&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 31 May 1988 Parties S.A. Walter Matter v. Sociedad Cafés Almela, S.A. Case number ATS 1722/1988 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4652&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 31 May 1988 Parties S.A. Walter Matter v. Sociedad Cafés Almela, S.A. Case number ATS 513/1988 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4651&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 14 April 1988 Case number III ZR 12/87 Applicable NYC Provisions V | I | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(b) | I(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof Languages English Summary The prevailing party in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration seated in Belgium sought enforcement of the award in Germany. The Landgericht (Regional Court) Stuttgart declared the award enforceable, but its decision was reversed by the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Stuttgart on appeal. The decision of the Oberlandesgericht was appealed before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court). The Bundesgerichtshof reversed the Oberlandesgericht’s decision and reinstated the decision of the Landgericht, which had declared the award enforceable. It found that the NYC was applicable since the award had been rendered within the territory of another contracting state as per Article I(1) NYC. The Bundesgerichtshof held that the formal prerequisites set forth by Article IV NYC had been met and there were no grounds to refuse enforcement of the award under Article V NYC. First, it held that the award had become binding within the meaning of Article V(1)(e) NYC since it was not subject to appeal before a higher arbitral tribunal or a state court . Second, although the tribunal had exceeded the time limit for rendering its award under the ICC Rules, according to the Bundesgerichtshof, this would not constitute grounds for non-enforcement under Article V(1)(d) NYC. In this respect, it noted that under the ICC Rules an arbitral tribunal does not become functus officio unless it is substituted by a different tribunal, even if it fails to render its award within the prescribed time limit; thus, the extension of the time limit for rendering the award had nothing to do with the “composition of the arbitral authority.” Third, it ruled that not giving a party the opportunity to comment on the extension of the time limit for the issuance of the award did not constitute a ground for refusing enforcement under Article V(1)(b) NYC, recalling that this provision merely required that the parties be informed of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the existence of arbitral proceedings. The Bundesgerichtshof also dismissed the argument that the enforcement of the award would violate German public policy pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC, since the unsuccessful party had failed to make use of the possibility to comment on the extension of the time limit, thus the ICC Court’s failure to explicitly ask for the parties’ comments regarding the extension of the time limit for rendering of the arbitral award did not constitute a violation of German public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=921&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 15 June 1987 Parties Case number II ZR 124/86 Applicable NYC Provisions V | II | V(2)(b) | II(1) Source BGH Summary An investment contract between a German individual and a New York corporation, governed by New York law and containing an arbitration clause, contravened certain mandatory provisions of German exchange laws. In court proceedings in Germany, the New York corporation invoked the arbitration clause. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) held that the case was non-arbitrable under German law. The combination of arbitration proceedings abroad and applicable law other than German law would leave the German mandatory exchange laws without effect, with regard to both the protection against claims filed against the persons protected by these laws and the possibility for the protected persons to obtain reimbursement of any sum paid. In the Court's opinion, Article V(2)(b) NYC would have been applicable to the facts of the case since the contract contravened German mandatory rules that are part of German "ordre public". If the arbitration agreement were to be recognised and its validity only verified at the stage of the recognition proceedings, the German individual would be referred to arbitration before an American arbitral tribunal that would not apply the German mandatory rules, with the result that the German individual would be incapable of recovering the sums unduly paid to the New York corporation. For these reasons, the Court denied recognition of the arbitration agreement for the "subject matter" not being "capable of settlement by arbitration" pursuant to Article II(1) NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=222&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 15 May 1986 Case number BGH III ZR 192/84 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) Source BGH Summary The Parties entered into a charterparty containing a clause providing for arbitration in London. Under the clause, each Party was to appoint one arbitrator. In the event that the arbitrators failed to reach an agreement on the decision, they would have to select an umpire to decide the dispute. The Claimant submitted a claim to arbitration and advised the Defendant that it had nominated an arbitrator, requesting that the Defendant appoint an arbitrator in 7 days or that otherwise its arbitrator would act as a sole arbitrator. The Defendant did not nominate an arbitrator and the sole arbitrator rendered an award in favor of the Claimant. Recognition was denied by the Landgericht (Lower Regional Court) Hamburg. The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) reversed the decision and granted enforcement. The Defendant appealed. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) upheld the decision of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht and granted enforcement. It concluded that the duty of impartial administration of justice is part of German public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b) NYC. "Ordre public international" is only considered infringed if the foreign tribunal has rendered an award on the basis of a proceeding deviating from fundamental principles of German procedural law to such an extent that the award cannot be considered rendered in an orderly procedure in accordance with the rule of law. In the interest of international trade, narrow limits must be drawn for the concept of German public policy in the context of recognition and enforcement. The recognition of an arbitral award can generally only be denied in those cases where the violation of the duty of impartial administration of justice had a real impact on the arbitral proceedings. The Court reasoned that the Defendant would have had to show that the arbitrator was unfit to act because he was partial towards one party, and that it had not met this burden. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=220&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Supreme Court Date 02 July 1985 Parties Mitsubishi Motors Corp v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Case number 3-1569 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) Source 473 U.S. 614 Languages English Summary A dispute arose between Mitsubishi, a Japanese corporation, and Soler Chrysler, a Puerto Rican company, concerning a distribution contract. Mitsubishi brought suit in a United States federal district court to compel arbitration in Japan, relying on the distribution contract. Soler Chrysler resisted arbitration on the grounds that (i) its counterclaims were based on a Sherman Antitrust Act violation, and (ii) the claims could not be disposed of in arbitration. The District Court ruled that the antitrust claims were arbitrable, and the Circuit Court reversed. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision and compelled arbitration. The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether claims arising out of the Sherman Antitrust Act were arbitrable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA) or the NYC. The Court found that they were. In doing so, the Court reasoned that “concerns for international comity, respect for the capacities of foreign and transnational tribunals, and sensitivity to the need of the international commercial system for predictability in the resolution of disputes” required that the Court compel arbitration. The Court further based its decision on the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal was competent to hear, and had agreed to consider, the antitrust claims. Finally, the Court held that national courts of the United States would have the opportunity at the enforcement stage, pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC, to ensure that the legitimate interest in the antitrust issues had been addressed. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=513&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Date 11 May 1984 Parties Waterside Ocean Nav. Co. v. Int’l Nav. Ltd. Case number 83-9016, 84-7184 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) Source 737 F.2d 150 Languages English Summary International Navigation, Ltd. (“INL”) as disponent owner, and Waterside Ocean Navigation Co., Inc. (“Waterside”) as charterer, entered into a charter party pursuant to which Waterside agreed to hire a vessel from INL. The agreement called for the arbitration of disputes in London, England. A dispute arose, and the arbitrators entered an interim award in favor of Waterside and four additional awards granting damages to Waterside. Waterside then applied to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for confirmation of the five awards, and it also sought post-award, pre-judgment interest. The District Court confirmed the awards but denied the latter request. Both parties appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, granted pre-judgment interest to Waterside and remanded the case to the District Court. In so holding, the Court rejected INL’s argument that confirmation would be contrary to United States public policy. The Court noted that for the recognition of an award to violate United States public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC, such recognition must offend “the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice”, and that to argue that the policy against inconsistent testimony was one of the United States’ most basic notions of morality and justice “would go too far”. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=730&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Korea Court Korea, Seoul Civil District Court Date 12 April 1984 Parties Cheil Steamer Co., Ltd. v. Construction Industry Co., Ltd. Case number 83Gahap7051 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6414&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date 15 November 1983 Parties La Societe Nationale Pour La Recherche, La Production, Le Transport, La Transformation et la Commercialisation Des Hydrocarbures (Algeria) v. Shaneen Natural Resources Company, Inc. (US) Case number 83 Civ. 0676 (KTD) Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | I | V(2)(b) | IV(1)(a) | I(1) Source 585 F. Supp. 57 Languages English Summary Sonatrach, an Algerian entity, and Shaheen, an Illinois corporation entered into a contract for the sale of crude oil. An arbitration clause in the contract provided for the application of the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”) and for the application of Algerian law. Sonatrach had initiated a breach of contract action against Shaheen in the Supreme Court, New York County, and subsequently commenced arbitration in accordance with the ICC Rules. By the award dated 27 November 1981, the Arbitral Tribunal decided in Sonatrach’s favor, and Sonatrach applied for confirmation of the award in the United States. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the award. It held that the Plaintiff had fulfilled the formal requirements for enforcement under Article IV(1)(a) NYC. It further noted that under Section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), a Court must confirm the award unless there are applicable grounds to defer or deny confirmation under Article V NYC. With regards to the defense that the NYC was not applicable since Sonatrach was an Algerian entity, the Court held that the focus of Article I(1) NYC is not on the nationality of the party seeking to enforce an award, but on the situs of the arbitration. The Court also held that for the recognition of an award to violate United States public policy within the terms of Article V(2)(b), such recognition must offend “the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice”, and dismissed the argument. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=719&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Higher Regional Court of Hamm) Date 02 November 1983 Case number 20 U 57/83 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(2)(a) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm Languages English Summary A German company obtained a favourable award in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration against an Italian company that had been placed under a regime of special administration and was being represented by a state-appointed commissario. The Landgericht (Regional Court) Bielefeld declared the award enforceable. The Italian company appealed, claiming that it had not been duly represented during the arbitral proceedings because the commisario’s authority to represent the company did not extend to arbitral proceedings. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Hamm confirmed the Landgericht’s declaration of enforceability. The Oberlandesgericht stated that enforcement may be denied only if (i) the party opposing enforcement proves the existence of any grounds for refusing enforcement under Article V(1) NYC or (ii) the court establishes grounds under Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht further stated that non-enforcement grounds under German domestic law could only be considered in the context of the public policy defence under Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht found that there were no grounds under Article V(2) NYC to refuse recognition and enforcement of the award. It found that the subject matter in dispute was arbitrable since it concerned a commercial matter (Article V(II)(a) NYC) and that the declaration of enforceability did not contradict German public policy (Article 5(II)(b) NYC). In particular, the Oberlandesgericht held that even if the Italian party were to have been prevented from continuing to participate in the arbitration under Italian law as a result of the establishment of the Italian regime of special administration, this would not justify a finding that the enforcement of the arbitral award violates German public policy. Furthermore, the Oberlandesgericht held that there was no basis for assuming a violation of German public policy in relation to the Italian party’s right to be heard, since the Italian party had not shown that its right to be heard had been severely violated. Finally, the Oberlandesgericht held that since no objections were raised during the arbitration proceedings regarding the Italian party’s representation, it should be deemed that it had accepted any such alleged irregularities. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=922&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 17 June 1983 Parties Ludmila C. Shipping Company Limited v. Maderas G.L. S.A. Case number ATS 680/1983 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3967&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Bundesgericht Date 26 February 1982 Parties Joseph Müller AG v. Bergesen und Obergericht (II. Zivilkammer) des Kantons Zürich Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary The parties concluded several charter parties all of which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in New York City, under New York law, and stating that any arbitral award rendered under the agreement was to be enforceable by any competent court and was to be finally effective and binding on the parties in any country. The Respondent obtained a favorable award against the Applicant, which, upon the Respondent’s application, the Bezirksgericht (Regional Court) Zurich declared to be enforceable. The Applicant’s appeal to the Obergericht (Higher Cantonal Court) Zurich was rejected, after which the Applicant filed a complaint before the Bundesgericht (Swiss Federal Tribunal), requesting that the Bezirksgericht’s decision be annulled and the matter remanded to the Obergericht for a new decision. The Applicant contended that the Obergericht had violated Article V(1)(e) NYC since it had wrongly held the award to be binding even though under New York law an award did not become binding and enforceable until it had been confirmed by a state court. The Bundesgericht dismissed the Applicant’s complaint, stating that the Applicant carried the burden of proving that the award had not become binding under Article V(1)(e) NYC. It found that whether an award had become binding on the parties was primarily a question to be determined according to the law applicable to the arbitral proceedings, which, as evidenced by Article V(1)(d) NYC, consisted primarily of the rules agreed upon by the parties and, in the absence of any such agreed rules, the law of the state where the arbitral proceedings were seated. The Bundesgericht further stated that the parties’ right to freely design the applicable procedural rules also included the parties’ right to declare certain mandatory state procedures to be inapplicable and to substitute them by their own rules, as long as this did not violate the public policy of the enforcement state under Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Bundesgericht noted that as long as the arbitral award was not appealable under the applicable procedural law, Swiss public policy did not provide any reason for refusing enforcement in Switzerland. The Bundesgericht concluded that in the present case the parties had agreed on New York law but had also agreed that the award should be enforceable by any competent court and be finally effective and binding on all parties in any country, which in turn meant that the award would become binding not after confirmation under New York law, but as of its issuance. The Bundesgericht added that the Applicant had failed to show that the alleged requirement to confirm the award under New York law was compatible with the parties’ arbitration agreement. The Bundesgericht further stated that even if the award was not declared enforceable at the place where it was issued, it could be binding on the parties and that a mandatory requirement to declare an award enforceable at its seat would run counter to the objective of the NYC to avoid double exequatur. According to the Bundesgericht, it was sufficient that the award was susceptible to exequatur at the arbitral seat. Finally, the Bundesgericht stated that the Applicant’s expert, who had considered an “unconfirmed award” to be a “mere expectation” had only considered the award in the light of New York law but not in the light of the NYC. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1424&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Spain Court Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Date 08 October 1981 Parties Inter-Continental de Café (International) S.A. v. Doña Edurne Case number ATS 457/1981 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Centro de Documentación Judicial – CENDOJ)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3961&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Reims (Court of Appeal of Reims) Date 23 July 1981 Parties Denis Coakley Limited v. Société Michel Reverdy Case number 774/81 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Reims
Summary On 15 September 1978, a French company (Michel Reverdy) sold four shipments of grain to an Irish company (Denis Coakley Limited). A dispute arose and two arbitral awards were rendered in London on 23 May 1980 and 29 September 1980 (the second award, rendered on appeal of the first pursuant to the GAFTA rules, confirmed the first award and ruled in favor of Denis Coakley). In an order issued on 24 November 1980, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Troyes (First Instance Court of Troyes) allowed enforcement of the awards in France. This decision was subsequently reformed on 6 May 1981, on the ground that one of the arbitrators in the first procedure had subsequently acted as counsel for Denis Coakley in the second procedure, contrary to international public policy. Appealing this decision, Denis Coakley argued that the action was not admissible and that the awards complied with international public policy and did not violate due process. The Cour d'appel de Reims (Reims Court of Appeal) overturned the 6 May 1981 decision and upheld the enforcement order of 24 November 1980. It reasoned that even though the NYC, applicable to the case at hand, provides that the arbitral procedure should comply with the law of the country where the arbitration took place, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award should, by virtue of Article V(2)(b) NYC not be contrary to the public policy of the country where the recognition and enforcement are sought. It added that it must examine whether the arbitral awards were compatible with the French concept of public policy and due process. It noted further that the public policy governing the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is not the domestic public policy, but relates to international law of the State where the decision is sought to be relied upon. In the case at hand, the Cour d'appel de Reims held that Michel Reverdy failed to establish that the 23 May 1980 award was contrary to French international public policy and that due process had been violated. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=115&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio Date 09 June 1981 Parties Fertilizer Corp. of India (India) v. IDI Mgmt. Inc. (US) Case number C-1-79-570 Applicable NYC Provisions VI | V | IV | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(c) | IV(1)(b) Source 517 F. Supp. 948 Languages English Summary Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI), a wholly-owned entity of the Government of India, and IDI Management (“IDI”), the successor in interest to Chemical & Industrial Corp. (“C & I”), an Ohio Corporation, entered into a contract for construction of a nitrophosphate plant in India. The contract provided for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”). An award was rendered in favor of FCI, who petitioned an Indian Court for confirmation of the award. IDI applied to another Indian Court to have the award set aside. Both proceedings before Indian courts were pending when FCI sought enforcement in the United States. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted an adjournment. The Court noted that it had been unable to discover any standard on which a decision to adjourn should be based, other than to ascertain whether an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award had been brought before a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made. In the present case, the Court ascertained that the threshold elements of Article VI NYC were fulfilled and that it was appropriate to adjourn the proceeding until Indian courts rendered a decision. In rejecting other defenses under the NYC, the Court found that: (i) the Petitioner had fulfilled the formal conditions of Article IV(1)(b) NYC, (ii) there was no public policy ground on which to refuse enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC, given that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied on this basis only where enforcement would violate “the forum states’ most basic notions of morality and justice”, (iii) there was no violation of Article V(1)(c) NYC, which followed Section 10(d) of the Federal Arbitration Act since the arbitrators did not exceed their authority in granting consequential damages under the award, and (iv) Article V(1)(e) the NYC did not prevent enforcement because the award was final and binding, as no further recourse was available in arbitration. see also :
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / a. The absence of a standard / §25
- VI / 2. ANALYSIS (VI) / c. Whether there are any prevailing factors to be considered by courts / §38
- 1. ANALYSIS (XIV) / §4
- I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(3) / a. Meaning of “legal relationships considered as commercial under the national law of the State making such declaration” / §86
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=845&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia Date 18 January 1980 Parties Southwire Co. (US) v. Laminoirs-Trefileres-Cableries de Lens, S.A. (France) Case number C79-43N, C79-44N Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) Source 484 F.Supp. 1063 Languages English Summary Laminors, a French seller (“the Seller”) and a corporation incorporated under the laws of Georgia, US (“the Buyer”), entered into a purchase agreement containing an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Laminors brought the dispute before the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) in accordance with the arbitration clause in the purchase contract. The Seller made a motion for confirmation of the arbitral award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Buyer opposed the motion. The United States District Court for Northern District of Georgia confirmed the award In a Supplemental Opinion, the same Court held that Georgia public policy did not bar the adoption of the French legal rate of interest on amounts due, since the arbitration agreement called for the contract to be interpreted according to the laws of Georgia to the extent they were compatible with the laws of France. It held that the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied under Article V(2)(b) NYC only where enforcement would violate “the forum countries’ most basic notions of morality and justice” and noted that there was no public policy ground on which to refuse enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=867&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Date 15 June 1979 Parties Transmarine Seaways Corp. v. Marc Rich & Co. Case number 79 Civ. 1439-CSH Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) Source 480 F. Supp. 352 Languages English Summary A dispute arose between Transmarine Seaways Corporation of Monrovia (“Transmarine”) and Marc Rich & Co. A.G. (“Rich”) concerning a charter party. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in the charter party, the dispute was submitted to arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal in New York. An award was rendered in favor of Transmarine who sought confirmation of the award and a judgment thereupon before the United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York. Rich cross-moved to vacate the award. The District Court confirmed the award and dismissed Rich’s cross-motion. The Court held that there had been no violation of public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC, rejecting Rich’s contentions that Transmarine procured the agreement by duress. It further held that a party claiming duress has the burden to establish it, and Rich failed to discharge that burden. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=875&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 08 February 1978 Parties X SA v. Y Ltd Case number P. 217/76 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Tribunal Fédéral
Languages English Summary An International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) award was rendered on 1 October 1973, in The Hague, in favor of Y against X. Y sought enforcement of the award in Switzerland pursuant to Article IV NYC by producing the original award, its sworn translation and the original contract containing the arbitration agreement. X challenged the enforcement on the grounds that the award violated public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC, as the arbitrators had consulted an expert in the chrome industry in the absence of the parties. The Tribunal de première instance of Geneva (Geneva Tribunal of First Instance) denied enforcement on the ground that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement. On appeal, the Cour de Justice of Geneva (Geneva Court of Appeal) overturned the decision and allowed the enforcement of the award. X appealed, invoking a violation of Articles V(1)(b) and V(1)(d) NYC. The Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal) confirmed the decision of the Cour de Justice of Geneva and allowed the enforcement of the award. The Tribunal Fédéral confirmed that the NYC was applicable to govern the enforcement procedure of an award rendered in the Netherlands, a State party to the NYC. The Tribunal Fédéral differentiated between Article V(1) NYC, which lists grounds which must be raised by the party opposing enforcement while grounds under Article V(2) NYC may be raised sua ponte by the enforcing court. The Tribunal Fédéral analyzed both Articles V(1)(b) and V(1)(d) grounds under the perspective of public policy and recalled that a violation of public policy could relate to the award itself or to the procedure according to which it has been rendered and that denial of enforcement of an award could be granted only in case of a violation of the fundamental principles of the Swiss legal order. The Tribunal Fédéral held that the fact that the arbitrators sought external and professional advice on the commercial context of the dispute but not on an issue which could bring a solution to the case did not amount to a violation of fundamental principles of Swiss public policy. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=908&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Date 23 December 1974 Parties Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) Case number 74-1642, 74-1676 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(2)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(b) Source 508 F.2d 969 Languages English Summary Parsons & Whittemore Overseas (“Overseas”), an American corporation, and Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier (“RAKTA”), an Egyptian corporation, entered in a contract for the construction and operation of a paper mill in Egypt. The contract provided for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”). RACTA initiated arbitration proceedings claiming damages for breach of the contract, and a final award was rendered in its favor. The award was confirmed by United States federal district court. Overseas appealed this decision and argued that: (i) the enforcement of the award would violate US public policy; (ii) the award represents a decision on matters not appropriate for arbitration; (iii) the Arbitral Tribunal denied Overseas an adequate opportunity to present its case; (iv) the award is predicated upon the resolution of issues outside the scope of the contractual agreement for arbitration, and (v) the award is in manifest disregard of the law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed the district court’s decision and confirmed the award. In dismissing the first objection, the Court of Appeals held that the public policy provision of Article V(2)(b) NYC should be construed narrowly, and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied only where enforcement would violate the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice. The court also ruled that the arbitrability of the claim, pursuant to Article V(2)(a) NYC, was not affected by the fact that US foreign policy was somehow implicated in the dispute. The Court found no violation of due process under Article V(1)(b) NYC and found no excess of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article V(1)(c) NYC. Finally, the Court declined to determine whether there was an implied defense of “manifest disregard of the law” under the NYC, instead holding that even if there was such a defense, Overseas had failed to establish it. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=714&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 10 May 1971 Parties Compagnie de Saint-Gobain Pont-à-Mousson v. The Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited Case number J 9915 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary A French company (Saint Gobain) entered into an agreement with an Indian company (Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited - F.C.L.I.) for the construction of a plant in India. A dispute arose and an award was rendered on 29 September 1969 in New Delhi in favor of F.C.L.I. In an order issued on 3 December 1969, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. In the meantime, Saint-Gobain initiated an action before the High Court of New Delhi to have the arbitral award declared without legal effect until it had been approved by the aforementioned court. Saint-Gobain also challenged the enforcement order before the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, arguing that the award had not yet become binding on the parties and that due process had been violated and that therefore the enforcement should be refused pursuant to Articles V(1)(b) and V(1)(e) NYC. In the alternative, Saint-Gobain requested an adjournment of the decision on the enforcement of the award pending the proceedings before the High Court of New Delhi in accordance with Article VI NYC. The President du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris dismissed the action on 15 May 1970. On 17 November 1970, the Indian Supreme Court declared that the award was final and binding on the parties. Appealing the 15 May 1970 order, Saint-Gobain argued that (i) the arbitral tribunal had failed to comply with the mandate conferred upon it (Article V(1)(c) NYC), (ii) due process had been violated (Article V(1)(b) NYC), and that (iii) the award was contrary to the public policy of the country where recognition and enforcement was sought (Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) affirmed the decision of the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris of 15 May 1970 and upheld the enforcement order. It did not refer to the NYC and rejected all of the arguments raised by Saint-Gobain based, inter alia, on the alleged violation of due process and public policy. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=110&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 06 March 1969 Case number VII ZR 163/68 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(a) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof Summary A Seller initiated arbitration proceedings against a Buyer before the Czechoslovak Chamber of Commerce and obtained an award ordering the Buyer to pay for goods delivered. Subsequently, the Seller assigned its claims under the arbitral award to a third party, the Claimant in the present proceedings. The Claimant then sued the owners of the Buyer as joint and several debtors before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg for payment of the amount ordered by the arbitral award. The Respondents argued that the German court lacked jurisdiction since there existed a final and binding arbitration award on the matter and the parties had agreed to dispute resolution by way of arbitration. The Respondent further alleged that the award was not enforceable in Germany since the Seller had obtained the award using false evidence, which represented a ground for restitution under Section 580 of the German Civil Procedure Code and, as such, also a non-enforcement ground under Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Landgericht dismissed the Respondent’s objections. The decision was upheld on appeal before the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court Hamburg). The Respondent appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court). The Bundesgerichtshof confirmed the earlier decisions of the Oberlandesgericht and Landgericht. Although the Bundesgerichtshof agreed with the Respondents that meeting the grounds for restitution under Sections 580(1) to 580(6) of the German Civil Procedure Code would generally also constitute a violation of German public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC, this would be the case only if a party has been prevented without any fault of its own from raising such grounds during the arbitration proceedings. The Bundesgerichtshof concluded that since the alleged fraud on the part of the Seller could have been raised as a defence earlier, it could not now be raised by the Respondent. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=194&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 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
