Available documents (227)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Germany / 12 February 1976 / Bundesgerichtshof / III ZR 42/74
Country Germany Court Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) Date 12 February 1976 Case number III ZR 42/74 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | II | VII(1) | V(1)(c) | II(2) | II(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof Languages English Summary In relation to a dispute regarding a sale purchase agreement for lard, the Seller obtained a favourable award from the Arbitration Commission of the Chamber of Commerce of the Romanian People’s Republic. The Buyer had refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings, arguing that the 6-month time limitation contained in the arbitration clause had lapsed. The Seller subsequently sought enforcement of its award in Germany, but the Landgericht (Regional Court) Frankfurt refused enforcement. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt confirmed the refusal and annulled the award, finding that the arbitrators had breached the terms of the arbitration agreement regarding the 6-month statute of limitations (giving rise to a non-enforcement ground under Article V(1)(c) NYC) and that the arbitral tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction constituted an “extreme case” justifying both refusal of enforcement and annulment. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) did not agree with the Oberlandesgericht’s decision on enforcement and remanded the case back to the Oberlandesgericht for reconsideration. It also reversed the annulment of the award, holding that an award falling under the NYC i.e. made in the territory of another Contracting State, may be annulled by a German court only if the award had been made pursuant to German law (which was not the case here). The Bundesgerichtshof held that the parties had validly concluded an arbitration agreement in writing as required by Articles II(1) and II(2) NYC. Although the arbitration clause was only contained in the General Conditions for the Sale and Delivery, it was inserted by the parties’ representatives in the signed contract itself, or at least attached to it as an exhibit. However, in relation to the scope of the arbitration agreement and the six-month time limit, the Bundesgerichtshof held that the arbitration clause was ambiguous and that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal after the six-month period was not explicitly excluded. The Bundesgerichtshof held that the facts discussed by the Oberlandesgericht did not allow for the conclusion that the arbitral tribunal had arbitrarily – and without any basis in the contractual provisions – assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=926&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Germany Court Germany, Landgericht Bremen Date 16 December 1965 Case number 12-OH 2/1965 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | II | VII(2) | VII(1) | II(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Landgericht Bremen Languages English Summary The Buyer imported honey from the Seller. Following a request from the Buyer, the Seller shipped certain quantities of honey and asked the Buyer to sign a contract calling for the resolution of all disputes in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Dutch Association for the Trade in Tropical Fruit and Spices. The Buyer did not sign the contract form, and informed the Seller that it would refuse the goods and not make the payment. The Seller obtained a favourable arbitral award against the Buyer in Rotterdam and sought enforcement in Germany. The Landgericht (Regional Court) Bremen denied the Seller’s request to declare the award enforceable under Article V(1)(a) NYC for lack of an arbitration agreement in writing. The Landgericht noted that Article II(2) NYC required the arbitration agreement to take the form of a clause in a contract or otherwise be signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams. It considered that the Seller’s form contract containing the arbitration agreement, however, had not been accepted by the Buyer. The Landgericht further held that pursuant to Article VII (2) NYC, the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927 did not apply because that treaty had ceased to have legal effect for both Germany and the Netherlands from when the NYC became binding on both countries. The Landgericht, however, found that German procedural law could apply in accordance with Article VII(1) NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=917&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
18 th meeting [E/CONF.26/SR.18 - E/2704 and Corr.1, E/2822 and Add.1 to 6, E/CONF.26/2, 26/3 and Add.1, 26/4, 26/7, E/CONF.26/L.16, L.23, L.44]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 4 June 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 VII Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3410&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 4 June 1958, at 2.50 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 VII | VIII Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3411&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 5 June 1958, at 10.40 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 V | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3412&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.5.Further Amendments to the Draft Convention Submitted by Governmental Delegations - 29 May -3 June 1958 Country Belgium Applicable NYC Provisions VI | VII Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3367&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 26/05/1958 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 Pakistan Applicable NYC Provisions I | V | V(1)(e) | VI | VII Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3334&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 21/05/1958 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 Poland Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | VII | VIII | IX Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3319&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 21/02/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Egypt | Sweden Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English | French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3298&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex I: Comments by Governements (General observations and then comments on each article) Annex II: Comments by Non-Governmental Organizations (General observations and then comments on each article). Date 31/01/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Austria | Belgium | Brazil | China | Denmark | France | India | Japan | Korea | Lebanon | Mexico | Philippines | Switzerland Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English | French | Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3297&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 8 March 1955, at 2.45 p.m Date 04/04/1955 Classification (first level) D. Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Classification (second level) D.1. Summary Records of the Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(d) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3433&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex: Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 28/03/1955 Classification (first level) D. Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards Country Australia | Belgium | Ecuador | Egypt | India | Sweden | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions III | VII | VIII Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3423&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex: E/AC.42/4 - Draft Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 28/03/1955 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.1. ECOSOC: Report of the Committee on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: 18 March 1955 Country Australia | Belgium | Ecuador | Egypt | India | Sweden | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3295&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 1. INTRODUCTION (ARTICLE VII(1)) / §1
1. Article VII(1) governs the relationship of the New York Convention with other treaties and domestic law and is considered to be one of the cornerstones of the Convention1. By stipulating that the Convention shall not affect the validity of other treaties concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, and facilitating the application of rules on recognition and enforcement that may be more liberal than the Convention, article VII(1) ensures the Convention’s compatibility with other international instruments as well as its durability, with the result that foreign arbitral awards are recognized and enforced to the greatest extent possible.
1. One commentator has described this provision as “the treasure, the ingenious idea” of the New York Convention. See Philippe Fouchard, Suggestions pour accroître l’efficacité internationale des sentences arbitrales, 1998 REV. ARB. 653, at 663.
See in context
10. Article VII(1) refers without restriction to “any right” allowed by the laws or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon. The German Federal Court of Justice has confirmed that, in application of article VII(1), an enforcing court may take into account the domestic law’s conflict-of-laws rules, which may result in the application of a foreign law more favourable to recognition and enforcement than the New York Convention.9
9. Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, III ZB 18/05, 21 September 2005, SchiedsVZ 2005, 306, where the application of German conflict-of-laws rules via article VII(1) of the Convention directed the Court to apply Dutch law, which contained more liberal formal requirements for an arbitration agreement than those under article II of the Convention.
See in context
11. Article VII(1) provides that the Convention shall not deprive any “interested party” from “availing” itself of an arbitral award.
See in context
12. Most courts have adopted the view that an interested party need not explicitly request recognition or enforcement on the basis of laws or treaties that are more favourable to enforcement.10 As a court will not be in breach of the New York Convention by applying more liberal rules on recognition and enforcement, it may rely on article VII(1) of its own motion. The French Court of Cassation, accordingly, has stated that “[t]he judge cannot refuse enforcement when its own national system permits it, and (…) he should, even sua sponte, research the matter if such is the case.”11
10. Société Pabalk Ticaret Sirketi v. Société Anonyme Norsolor, Court of Cassation, France, 83-11.355, 9 October 1984, with English translation in 24 ILM 360 (1985). German courts have adopted the same view. See Bundergerichtshof, Germany, III ZB 50/05, 23 February 2006, SchiedsVZ 2006, 161. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has deviated from this view, without discussion. Sudan Oil Seeds Co. Ltd. (U.K.) v. Tracomin S.A. (Switz.) Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland, 5 November 1985, Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral (1985) 111 Ib 253.
11. Société Pabalk Ticaret Sirketi v. Société Anonyme Norsolor, Court of Cassation, France, 83-11.355, 9 October 1984, with English translation in 24 ILM 360 (1985) at 363.
See in context
13. In certain decisions, German courts have considered that a party seeking to rely on another treaty or domestic law by virtue of article VII(1) must rely on it in its entirety, to the exclusion of the New York Convention.12 According to these decisions, it would not be permissible for a party to base a request for enforcement on the Convention and, at the same time, rely on the more liberal formal requirements for an arbitration agreement under German law.
12. Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, III ZB 18/05, 21 September 2005; Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, III ZB 50/05, 23 February 2006; Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, III ZB 68/02, 25 September 2003. See also Albert Jan Van den Berg, The German Arbitration Act 1998 and the New York Convention 1958, in LIBER AMICORUM KARL-HEINZ BOCKSTIEGEL (Robert Briner et al. eds., 2001)
See in context
14. A view advanced by a number of other German courts13 is that the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention would permit an interested party to select the more favourable rules and combine them with the provisions of the New York Convention.14 For instance, a Higher Regional Court has enforced an award pursuant to procedural requirements under German domestic law, which are more favourable than article IV of the Convention, while applying article V of the Convention in respect of possible grounds for refusal to enforce.15 A court in the United States of America has also granted enforcement to a foreign arbitral award by combining elements of the New York Convention and more favourable domestic law.16
14. JULIAN LEW AND LOUKAS A. MISTELIS, COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, at 697-698 (2003); FOUCHARD GAILLARD GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, at 350 (E. Gaillard, J. Savage eds., 1996).
15. Oberlandesgericht, Köln, Germany, 9 Sch 01-03, 23 April 2004.
See in context
15. Furthermore, as described at para. 17 below, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has held that where competing legal provisions concerning recognition and enforcement apply to the enforcement of an arbitral award, precedence should be given to “the provision that allows for making such recognition and enforcement easier,” thus implicitly accepting a combined application of two systems.17
See in context
16. Certain arbitral awards or agreements may fall under the field of application of the New York Convention as well as the field of application of a multilateral or bilateral treaty. Article VII(1) provides the basic rule that the Convention shall not affect the validity of multilateral or bilateral treaties concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards entered into by the Contracting States to the Convention, and that an interested party may rely on those treaties if they are more favourable to enforcement than the Convention. This is in keeping with the broader objective of the New York Convention to provide for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and agreements whenever possible, either on the basis of its own provisions or those of another instrument.
See in context
17. As the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has confirmed, article VII(1) thus derogates from the rules that normally govern the application of conflicting provisions of treaties, namely that a later legal rule prevails over a prior inconsistent legal rule (“lex posterior derogat legi priori”) and that wherever two or more norms deal with the same subject matter, priority should be given to the norm that is more specific (“lex specialis derogat legi generali”). As the Court explained, the Convention replaces these rules with the principle of maximum effectiveness (“règle d’efficacité maximale”) by providing that the instrument which prevails is neither the more recent nor the more specific, but instead that which is the more favourable to the enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In the words of the Court, “[t]his solution corresponds to the so-called rule of maximum effectiveness (…). According to this rule, in case of discrepancies between provisions in international conventions regarding the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, preference will be given to the provision allowing or making such recognition and enforcement easier, either because of more liberal substantive conditions or because of a simpler procedure. This rule is in conformity with the aim of bilateral or multilateral conventions in this matter, which is to facilitate, as much as possible, the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.”18
18. Denysiana S.A. v. Jassica S.A., Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland, March 14, 1984, Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral 110 Ib 191, 194. Courts in Spain have also endorsed that article VII(1) follows the principle of maximum effectiveness. See Actival Internacional S.A. v. Conservas El Pilar S.A., Tribunal Supremo, Spain, 16 April 1996, 3868/1992; Unión de Cooperativas Agrícolas Epis-Centre v. La Palentina S.A., Tribunal Supremo, Spain, 17 February 1998, 3587/1996, 2977/1996; Delta Cereales España S.L. v. Barredo Hermanos S.A., Tribunal Supremo, Spain, 6 October 1998.
See in context
18. While the provisions of the New York Convention rarely compete with other international instruments concerning recognition and enforcement, where courts have been faced with such conflicts, they have typically resolved them under the more-favourable-right provision under article VII(1).
See in context
19. The European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (done in Geneva, 21 April 1961) is one of the few regional instruments containing more liberal rules governing the arbitral process than the New York Convention. It is the first international instrument to treat international arbitration as a whole, and consequently to provide rules governing all of its various stages. As of the date of this Guide, 32 States have signed the European Convention.19
19. For the current status of the European Convention, see the United Nations Treaty Collection.
See in context
2. By virtue of article VII(1), Contracting States will not be in breach of the Convention by enforcing arbitral awards pursuant to provisions of domestic laws or treaties that are more favourable to enforcement. This reflects the notion that the New York Convention sets a “ceiling”, or the maximum level of control, which national courts of the Contracting States may exert over the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.2
2. See Philippe Fouchard, La portée internationale de l’annulation de la sentence arbitrale dans le pays d’origine, 1997 REV. ARB. 329; Emmanuel Gaillard, Enforcement of Awards Set Aside in the Country of Origin: The French Experience, in IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS: 40 YEARS OF APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION (A. J. van den Berg ed., 1999); Emmanuel Gaillard,The Urgency of Not Revising the New York Convention, in ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO. 14, 50 YEARS OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION: ICCA INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE 689 (A. J. van den Berg ed., 2009).
See in context
20. Under the European Convention, the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is considered only very indirectly.20 Accordingly, where an arbitration agreement or award falls within the field of application of both the European Convention and the New York Convention, courts have correctly considered that the provisions of the New York Convention concerning enforcement complement the provisions of the European Convention and that they need not apply the more-favourable-right provision at article VII(1). For instance, when considering an application for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a Spanish court applied both instruments, noting that “the European Convention concerns the applicable law and the jurisdiction of judicial authorities and arbitrators, whereas the New York Convention concerns the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.”21 German courts have affirmed the complementary nature of these instruments by reference to Section 1061(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the stipulations of other treaties concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards will remain unaffected by the application of the New York Convention.22
20. Pursuant to its article I, the European Convention applies to “arbitration agreements concluded for the purpose of settling disputes from international trade between physical legal persons having, when concluded the agreement, their habitual place of residence or their seat in different Contracting States” and to “arbitral procedures and awards based on” such agreements. Its application thus differs from that of the New York Convention in two respects: (i) the European Convention applies only to disputes arising from international trade; and (ii) the European Convention requires that the parties to the arbitration agreement come from different Contracting States. The scope of application of the New York Convention contains neither of these two requirements and is thus broader.
21. Nobulk Cargo Services Ltd. v. Compania Española de Laminacion S.A., Tribunal Supremo, Spain, 27 February 1991. See also the same view expressed by French courts in Société Européenne d’Etudes et d’Entreprises (S.E.E.E.) v. République Socialiste Fédérale de Yougoslavie, Court of Appeal, Rouen, France, 13 November 1984.
22. For instance, Oberlandesgericht, München, Germany, 34 Sch 019/08, 27 February 2009. In contrast, where a party resisting enforcement has alleged that an interested party may not rely on both the European Convention and the New York Convention in support of its request for enforcement, an Italian court has referred to the compatibility in the first clause of article VII(1) to support its finding that both instruments would apply. See Arenco-BMD Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Societá Ceramica Italiana Pozzi-Richard Ginori S.p.A., Corte di Appello, Milan, Italy, 16 March 1984.
See in context
21. The Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (done in Panama, 30 January 1975) was modelled after the New York Convention and written to be fully compatible with it.23 The Panama Convention contains provisions concerning the recognition and enforcement of awards which are similar, but not identical, to those found in the New York Convention.24 At the date of this Guide, the Panama Convention is applicable in 19 countries, all of which are also Contracting Parties to the New York Convention.25
23. Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Convention 1958 and the Panama Convention of 1975: Redundancy or Compatibility?, 5 ARB. INTL. 214 (1989)
24. For instance, unlike article II(3) of the New York Convention, the Panama Convention nowhere specifically requires the courts of a Contracting State to refer the parties to arbitration when seized of an action subject to an arbitration agreement falling under its field of application. While article 5 of the Panama Convention largely incorporates the grounds for refusal under article V of the New York Convention, the precise wording of these articles differs in several respects. Furthermore, unlike the New York Convention, the Panama Convention contains provisions governing other aspects of the arbitral process, such as the appointment of arbitrators (article 2), the conduct of the arbitral proceedings (article 3)
25. The current status of the Panama Convention is available online at: www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-35.html.
See in context
22. According to a 2008 survey of decisions from Latin America, most Latin American States that are party to both instruments have relied exclusively on the New York Convention when recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards.26
See in context
23. The majority of reported cases expressly discussing the Panama Convention were rendered in the United States of America, whose Federal Arbitration Act contains provisions governing the relationship between the New York Convention and the Panama Convention. Section 305 of the Federal Arbitration Act provides that when both Conventions are applicable to an arbitral award or agreement, the Panama Convention shall apply if a majority of the parties to the arbitration agreement are citizens of a State or States that have ratified or acceded to the Panama Convention and are member States of the Organization of American States. At the same time, Section 302 of the Federal Arbitration Act mandates that certain provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act shall apply together with the provisions of the Panama Convention.27
27. United States Code, Title 9 — Arbitration, § 302, which specifies: “Sections 202, 203, 204, 205, and 207 of this title shall apply to this chapter as if specifically set forth herein, except that for the purposes of this chapter ‘the Convention’ shall mean the Inter-American Convention.”
See in context
24. In practice, courts in the United States of America have applied the New York Convention and the Panama Convention as if they were identical. For instance, in a case before the United States District Court, when a party seeking to enforce an award relied on both the New York Convention and the Panama Convention, the Court limited its consideration to the New York Convention on the grounds that “codification of the Panama Convention incorporates by reference the relevant provisions of the New York Convention (…) making discussion of the Panama Convention unnecessary.”28
28. TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electrificadora del Atlantico S.A. E.S.P., District Court, District of Columbia, United States of America, 17 March 2006, 421 F. Supp. 2d 87, (D.D.C. 2006), at footnote No. 4, p.91. See also Productos Mercantiles E Industriales, S.A. v. Faberge USA Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 18 April 1994, 23 F.3d. 41 (2d Cir. 1994), at 45, where the court noted, “The legislative history of the Inter-American Convention’s implementing statute … clearly demonstrates that Congress intended the Inter-American Convention to reach the same results as those reached under the New York Convention.”
See in context
