Case Law
Available documents (91)
sorted by (Date of decision descending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
France / 24 November 2020 / France, Cour d’appel de Poitiers (Court of Appeal of Poitiers) / Urs Wildberger v. SA SPBI and Société Simpson Marine Limited / 18/01230
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Poitiers (Court of Appeal of Poitiers) Date 24 November 2020 Parties Urs Wildberger v. SA SPBI and Société Simpson Marine Limited Case number 18/01230 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6606&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) Date 12 March 2020 Parties Société Euro Herramientas v. Société The Stanley Works Limited Case number 19/07463 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6339&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 07 January 2020 Parties République démocratique du Congo v. Société Divine Inspiration Group (Pty) Case number 19/07260 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5677&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 22 October 2019 Parties Fédération de Russie v. JSC Oschadbank Case number 19/04161 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5643&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Tribunal de commerce de Versailles (Commercial Court of Versailles) Date 27 September 2019 Parties Euro Herramientas S.A.U. v. The Stanley Works Limited Case number 2018F00474 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5731&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 05 September 2019 Parties Société Mohamed Abdel Moshen Al-Kharafi et Fils v. Société Libyan Investment Authority and Société Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company Case number 18/17592 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6078&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 21 May 2019 Parties Société Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation v. Société National Gas Company (NATGAS) Case number 17/19850 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5503&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) Date 06 April 2018 Parties Syndicat Mixte des Aéroports de Charente (SMAC) v. Société Ryanair Limited and Société Airport Marketing Services Limited Case number 17/03565 Source Registry of the Court
Languages French see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5237&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 13 February 2018 Parties Société Strube GmbH & Co. KG v. Société SESVanderHave Case number 15/17137 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4584&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 10 November 2017 Parties Société Briqueterie Taghaste v. SCP BTSG and others Case number 16/14744 Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5317&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Tribunal des conflits (Jurisdictional Conflicts Tribunal) Date 24 April 2017 Case number 4075 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | VII Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5236&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Conseil d’État (French Council of State) Date 09 November 2016 Parties Société Fosmax LNG v. Société TCM FR, Société Tecnimont and Société Saipem Case number 388806 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3678&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 27 September 2016 Parties Société Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche v. Société Indagro Case number 15/12614 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3647&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 08 July 2015 Parties Société Ryanair Limited and Société Airport Marketing Services Limited v. Syndicat Mixte des Aéroports de Charente (SMAC) and Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris Case number 13-25.846 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | VII Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d'appel de Paris
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1715&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 14 April 2015 Parties Etat du Mali v. Société Groupe Tomota Case number 14/05996 Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d'appel de Paris
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1714&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Tribunal de commerce de Nanterre (Commercial Court of Nanterre) Date 19 June 2014 Parties Société Farmex Technologies v. Foreign Financing Projects Management Center of the Ministry of Finance (FFPMC), et al. Case number 2012R01140 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5235&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 24 November 2011 Parties Société Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) v. Société National Gas Company (NATCAS) Case number 10/16525 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d'appel de Paris
Languages English Language(s) French Summary A gas supply contract was concluded between an Egyptian public entity (Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation - EGPC) and another Egyptian company (National Gas Company - NATGAS). NATGAS subscribed various US dollar denominated loans in the context of the transaction. A decree subsequently cancelled the Egyptian currency's parity with the US dollar, which increased the financial burden upon NATGAS. EGPC refused to bear these additional costs and NATGAS filed a Request for arbitration before the Regional Commercial Arbitration Center of Cairo. In an award dated 12 September 2009, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of NATGAS. In an order issued on 19 May 2010, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award. EGPC appealed this decision on several grounds: (i) the award had been annulled by the Egyptian Courts, (ii) the arbitration agreement was void or nonexistent, (iii) violation of due process, (iv) violation of international public policy. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) first stated that Articles 1498 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e. now Articles 1514 and et seq. pursuant to the French Decree of 13 January 2011) apply to both international arbitral awards and arbitral awards rendered abroad. In accordance with Article VII NYC, it ruled that French law is applicable as being more favorable than the NYC (given than it does not provide the setting aside of a foreign award as a ground for non-enforcement) and rejected EGPC's claim based on Articles 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e. now Articles 1514 and 1520 5°). It also dismissed the other claims raised by EGPC and upheld the enforcement of the award. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=396&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 09 June 2011 Parties Société Facciano Giuseppe v. Société Coopérative Agricole Nouricia Case number 10/11062 Applicable NYC Provisions II | I Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Languages English Summary An Italian company (Facciano Giuseppe) and a French company (Coopérative Agricole Nouricia) entered into five contracts for the sale of wheat. The contracts were concluded under the Incograin form via a merchandise broker, which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Nouricia filed a Request for arbitration before the Chambre arbitrale de Paris (Arbitral Chamber of Paris). In a final award dated 29 July 2009, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of Nouricia. Facciano Giuseppe initiated proceedings to set aside the award before the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal). It argued that the award should be annulled pursuant to Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e. now Article 1520 1°, pursuant to French Decree of 13 January 2011), claiming that the arbitral tribunal ruled in the absence of an arbitration agreement. In this respect, its claim was based on Article 1443 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles I and II NYC which provide that, in order to be valid, an arbitration agreement shall be in writing. The Cour d'appel de Paris held that the NYC did not apply to the case at hand since the award was rendered in Paris. Given that all the written confirmations of the contracts referred to the General Conditions of the Incograin form and to the arbitration agreement contained therein, it ruled that the arbitration agreement was valid and rejected the action to set aside the award. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=426&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Pau (Court of Appeal of Pau) Date 18 May 2011 Parties Société Fertinagro v. Liepajas Juras Birojs, Liepajas Shipping Co. Ltd. and Capitaine du navire Sava Ocean Case number 10/05093 Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5234&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 18 November 2010 Parties Gouvernement de la région de Kaliningrad (Fédération de Russie) v. République de Lituanie Case number 09/19535 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | III | V Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary The region of Kaliningrad entered into a loan with a German bank, which was subsequently transferred to a Cypriot company, Duke Investment. The loan agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for LCIA arbitration in London. The LCIA rendered an award on 1 October 2004 in favor of Duke Investment. Lithuanian Courts granted enforcement to the award on 7 March 2006, on the basis of which two buildings located in Lithuania but belonging to the region of Kaliningrad were seized and sold. On 30 October 2006, the Government of the Region of Kaliningrad (GRK) filed a Request for arbitration against Lithuania before the ICC pursuant to the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) concluded between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Lithuania. GRK argued that the selling of its property constituted an expropriation within the meaning of the BIT. In an award dated 28 January 2008, the arbitral tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to settle the dispute insofar as, in light of the provisions of the NYC, the BIT may not have the effect of creating an appellate mechanism for international arbitral awards. GRK filed an action to set aside the award before French Courts. It argued that the arbitrators failed to comply with their mandate and that the NYC did not apply to the case at hand. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) decided that the action was admissible since, being the court in charge of the annulment of arbitral awards, it is entitled to review an award on jurisdiction. It then reviewed the provisions of the BIT, of the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the Law of Treaties, and the NYC (in particular Articles I, III and V NYC). While noting that the objective of the NYC is to facilitate recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that the BIT may not be construed as granting the possibility to seek to hold a State liable for the sole purpose of it performing its obligations under the NYC; holding otherwise would be incompatible with the objective of the NYC. It thus ruled that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction and rejected the action to set aside the award. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=189&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 19 October 2010 Parties Société d'études et de réalisations pour les industriels du bois (Séribo) v. Société Hainan Yangpu Xindadao Industrial Co/Ltd Case number 08/13182 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(d) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 24 May 1999, a French company (Séribo) entered into a supply agreement with a Chinese company (Hainan Yangpu Xindadao Industrial Co Ltd), for the supply of a factory, buy back obligations and technical assistance. The Chinese company then decided to shut down the factory and to file a claim before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), contending that the French company had failed to comply with its buy back and technical assistance obligations. CIETAC found that it had jurisdiction to rule upon the dispute and ruled in favor of the Chinese company, which then asked for enforcement of the award in France. In an order issued on 17 April 2008, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the French company argued that the award did not comply with Article V(1)(d) NYC since the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. It claimed that (i) the English and Chinese versions of the contract were different (the former provided for arbitration in Paris before the ICC whereas the latter provided for arbitration before CIETAC in Beijing) and that the arbitral tribunal should have relied on the English version and declined jurisdiction, and that (ii) the action was inadmissible since the parties failed to comply with a mandatory conciliation procedure. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) upheld the enforcement order. It did not provide any answer to the French company's claim based on Article V(1)(d) NYC. While noting that both versions of the contract direct the parties to attempt to settle their claims through negotiation, it held that this did not constitute a mandatory requirement, the failure of which would deprive the arbitral tribunal from its jurisdiction. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=188&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 25 February 2010 Parties Fédération française d'études et de sports sous-marins (FFESSM) v. Société Cutner & Associates P.C. Case number 08/22780 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary The President and General Secretary of a French Federation (FFESSM) entered into an agreement with an American law firm (CUTNER & Associates) for legal representation in a litigation brought by a French Association (Equipe Cousteau) before the Courts of New York. A dispute arose as to counsel's fees. Pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the contract, the American law firm filed a claim against the French Federation before the American Arbitration Association. In an award dated 26 June 2007, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the American law firm and awarded damages. In an order issued on 1 September 2008, the President of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, FFESSM and its President and General Secretary argued that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris lacked jurisdiction to grant the enforcement of the award. In this respect, they argued that they did not receive a proper notice of the procedural acts, which were not translated into French, contrary to the requirement of Article IV(2) NYC, and that enforcement should be denied pursuant to Article 1502 2° and 1502 4° of the Code of Civil Procedure. Lastly, they claimed that only FFESSM is a party to the contract and therefore the arbitral tribunal had been deceived in holding FFESSM's representatives liable in their own name. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement of the award. It ruled that, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris has jurisdiction to allow enforcement of international awards or awards rendered abroad and rejected the fraud allegations which pertained to the merits of the award and were therefore not open to review by the annulment judge. As to the enforcement of the award, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that the arbitral tribunal acted in accordance with the procedure agreed upon between the parties (by referring to the provisions of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association pertaining to procedural acts and the language of the arbitration) and that therefore proper notice was provided to both parties. It then rejected FFESSM's argument based on Article IV NYC by recalling that this provision only deals with the translation requirements for enforcement of awards (i.e. the award has to be translated in the official language of the country in which the award is relied upon). Consequently, it ruled that the fact that the procedural acts in the arbitration were not translated in the language of the country in which the award is sought to be enforced did not constitute a breach of Article IV NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=187&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 14 January 2010 Parties Société OAO NPO Saturn v. Société Unimpex Entreprises Ltd Case number 08/17189 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) Source Registry of the Court
Languages French see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6077&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 15 October 2009 Parties Société OAO NPO Saturn v. Société Unimpex Entreprises Ltd Case number 07/17049 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(a) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 5 February 1996, UNIMPEX Entreprises LTD sold a plane and engines to a Russian company (Rybinske Motory (OAO NPO SATURN being its successor)). An amendment was subsequently signed providing for the transfer of shares of the Russian company. Following issues relating to the share transfer, UNIMPEX seized the arbitral tribunal pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the sales agreement. The arbitrators ruled in favor of UNIMPEX. In an order issued on 4 July 2007, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, OAO NPO SATURN argued that the arbitral tribunal ruled in the absence of an arbitration agreement and that the award was contrary to international public policy (Articles 1502 1° and 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure). It claimed that the subject matter of the dispute (concerning the performance of the amendment which pertains to the transfer of shares) was not capable of settlement by arbitration under Russian law and that therefore the enforcement of the award was contrary to Article V(2)(a) NYC. It also argued that recognition and enforcement of the award would violate international public policy since the amendment was null and void under Russian law. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement of the award. It held that Article V(2) NYC refers to the law of the "country where recognition and enforcement is sought", in the case at hand, French law. Given that under French law penalties requested in the transfer of shares of a joint-stock company are arbitrable, the Cour d'appel de Paris ruled that the enforcement of the award was not contrary to Article V(2) NYC. It added that international public policy precludes a party from relying on the restrictive provisions of its domestic law to avoid the consequences of an arbitration to which it consented. Lastly, it rejected the argument based on an alleged violation of international public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=186&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 27 November 2008 Parties Société GFI Informatique v. Société Engineering Ingegneria Informatica and Société Engineering Sanità Enti Locali (ex GFI Sanità) Case number 07/11672 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 27 June 2001, a French company (GFI Informatique) entered into a joint venture agreement with two Italian companies (Engineering Ingegneria Informatica - EII - and Engineering Sanita' Enti Locali - ESE). A dispute arose as to the performance of the agreement and EII and ESE filed a Request for arbitration before the Camera Arbitrale di Milano, pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the joint-venture agreement. In an award dated 23 March 2007, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of EII. A corrective award was rendered on 29 March 2007. Enforcement of the award was granted on 16 May 2007 by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris). GFI appealed this decision by arguing that the arbitrators ruled without complying with their mandate and that the award was contrary to international public policy (Articles 1502 3° and 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure). With respect to the first ground, GFI argued that the arbitral tribunal did not take into account all of the submissions filed by the parties, and that EII did not provide the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris with a certified translation of the award by a sworn translator in the list of the said tribunal, which is contrary to the NYC. GFI also claimed that the arbitrators did not discuss the decision amongst themselves, which is contrary to international public policy. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order. It found that the arbitral tribunal had complied with its mandate since only an omission to answer to a specific claim constitutes a ground for non-enforcement under Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was not the case here. As regards the translation of the award, it ruled that the fact the award was not translated by an expert registered among the list of French judicial experts did not constitute a ground for non-enforcement. It added that neither the NYC, nor Article 1499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, required a sworn translation of the award to be given by a translator from the country where enforcement is sought. Lastly, the Cour d'appel de Paris rejected the argument based on a violation of international public policy by holding that the arbitrators had discussed their position and that the President had taken into account the comments provided by the other arbitrators. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=185&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
