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
Korea / 12 April 1984 / Korea, Seoul Civil District Court / Cheil Steamer Co., Ltd. v. Construction Industry Co., Ltd. / 83Gahap7051
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
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York on Wednesday, 21 May 1958, at 10.55 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 III | V | V(1)(d) | V(2)(b) Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3394&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 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 Final Act and Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 10/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.14. Final Act and Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3392&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.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 04/06/1958 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 IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3381&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.7. Text of Articles III, IV and V of the Draft Convention Proposed by Working Party III: 3 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3371&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 29/05/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.3. Comparison of Drafts Relating to Articles III, IV and V of the Draft Convention - 29 May 1958 Country Netherlands | Sweden | Israel | Pakistan | France | Japan | Yugoslavia | Poland | United Kingdom | Switzerland | Italy Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3359&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
