sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) 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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Ibrahim Fadlallah ; Dominique Hascher / Chapitre 1 (Autonomie de la clause), Section 3 (Compétence) ; Observations sur Cassation, Civ. 1, 5 janv. 1999, n° 96-21.430 et 7 juin 2006, n° 03-12.034 / in Les grandes décisions du droit de l'arbitrage commercial, Paris, Dalloz, 2019, pp. 33-51 - 01/06/2019
Author(s) Ibrahim Fadlallah ; Dominique Hascher Source in Les grandes décisions du droit de l'arbitrage commercial, Paris, Dalloz, 2019, pp. 33-51 Subject(s) A. General arbitration books (addressing the 1958 New York Convention) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 1110482346 
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6274&opac_view=6
Author(s) Ibrahim Fadlallah ; Dominique Hascher Source in Les grandes décisions du droit de l'arbitrage commercial, Paris, Dalloz, 2019, pp. 323-342 Subject(s) A. General arbitration books (addressing the 1958 New York Convention) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 1110482346 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6273&opac_view=6
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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Sharad Bansal Source 20 (6) International Arbitration Law Review 206 (2017) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 1024077003 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5152&opac_view=6
Author(s) José Joaquín Caicedo Demoulin Source 2017 (2) Revue de l’arbitrage 445 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 799490172 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6261&opac_view=6
Author(s) Julie Klein Source 2017 (2) Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage (The Paris Journal of International Arbitration) 183 Subject(s) A. Articles on the 1958 New York Convention Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 1041405970 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5975&opac_view=6
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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Alexander T. Brabant ; Maxime Desplats Source 44 JCP G Semaine Juridique (édition générale) 1980 (2015) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 64224251 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5981&opac_view=6
Author(s) Malik Laazouzi Source 2015(4) Revue de l'arbitrage 1131 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 799490172 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6262&opac_view=6
Author(s) Dominique Hascher Source 1(2) McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 1 (2015) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 911246855 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3637&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
External ResourceExternal Resource
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=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) François-Xavier Train Source 66(2) Revue Internationale de Droit Compare 249 (2014) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 887698786 ISBN 978-90-411-2690-0 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3012&opac_view=6
Author(s) Katherine Belton Source 24(1) The American Review of International Arbitration 161 (2013) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 851633617 ISBN 978-90-411-2690-0 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3011&opac_view=6
Author(s) Katherine Belton Source 24(1) The American Review of International Arbitration 161 (2013) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions United Kingdom | France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 851633617 ISBN 978-0-379-21423-9 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3209&opac_view=6
Author(s) Jan Kleinheisterkamp Source 75(4) The Modern Law Review 639 (2012) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France | United Kingdom Worldcat Number Worldcat : 7781141819 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5972&opac_view=6
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=6 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. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=426&opac_view=6 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=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Gilles Cuniberti Source 2011 (2) Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage (The Paris Journal of International Arbitration) 433 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France | United Kingdom Worldcat Number Worldcat : 967522246 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5971&opac_view=6
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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 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=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Thomas Clay Source 27 ASA Bulletin 50 (2009) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 801448620 ISBN 978-90-411-1274-3 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3009&opac_view=6
Author(s) Jean-Louis Delvolvé ; Gerald H. Pointon ; Jean Rouche Source Kluwer Law International, 3 (2009) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 938834915 ISBN 978-90-411-2690-0 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3010&opac_view=6
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. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=185&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 April 2008 Parties Société C22 v. Société John K. King & Sons Limited Frontier Agriculture Limited Case number 06/15636 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary In an award dated 12 June 2006 rendered in London, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of a UK company (King) against a French company (C22). In an order issued on 10 August 2006, 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, the opposing party argued that the award was contrary to international public policy pursuant to Article 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article V(2)(b) NYC. In this respect, it claimed that the award was rendered in violation of the principle of impartiality and independence of arbitrators. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order. It noted that (i) pursuant to Article VII NYC, a party may not be deprived of its right to rely on an award in accordance with, and within the limits of, the laws of the place where enforcement is sought, and (ii) Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure is similar in substance to Article V NYC and leads to similar results with respect to the public policy exception. It ruled that C22, which participated in the arbitral proceedings leading to the award, without making any objection to the composition of the arbitral tribunal, was estopped from requesting that the Cour d'appel de Paris set aside the award on the basis of an irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal, which it had tacitly but necessarily consented to. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=183&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Toulouse (Court of Appeal of Toulouse) Date 09 April 2008 Parties Société Gefu Küchenboss GmbH & Co. KG and Société Gefu Geschäfts-und Verwaltungs GmbH v. Société Corema Case number 07/04323 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Toulouse
Summary A commercial agency agreement was entered into between a German company (Gefu Küchenboss) and a French company (Coréma) on 9 April 1993, which contained an arbitration clause. The German company terminated the agreement on 8 April 2005, following which the French Company nominated its counsel as its arbitrator pursuant to the arbitration agreement. Given that the parties failed to reach an agreement as to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the French company filed a law suit before the Tribunal de commerce de Toulouse (Commercial Court of Toulouse), which retained jurisdiction to rule upon the dispute. Appealing this decision, the German company argued that the Tribunal de commerce de Toulouse lacked jurisdiction and violated the Competence-Competence principle, Article 1493 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article II NYC, having failed to determine that the arbitration agreement was manifestly void or manifestly not applicable. The Cour d'appel de Toulouse (Toulouse Court of Appeal) noted that the arbitration agreement provided that "Any dispute will be submitted to an arbitrator chosen by both parties within 3 months of the notification of the dispute by one of the parties. If the arbitration cannot proceed, the Tribunal de Commerce will have jurisdiction". In the absence of agreement between the parties regarding the constitution of the arbitral tribunal within the three-month period provided by the arbitration agreement, it confirmed that the Tribunal de Commerce de Toulouse had sole jurisdiction to rule upon the dispute. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=507&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 14 March 2008 Parties Société Générale Assurance Méditerranéenne (G.A.M.) v. Société FSA Ré et Société Garantie Assistance Case number 07/16773 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 9 June 2005, General Assurance Mediterranéenne (GAM) entrusted Garantie Assistance (GA) with claims management (regarding repatriation and medical expenses) for GAM beneficiaries. Given that insurance premium remained outstanding, GA initiated summary proceedings against GAM before the juge des référés of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris). An order was issued in favor of GA on 16 July 2007. Appealing this decision, GAM argued that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris lacked jurisdiction pursuant to an arbitration agreement concluded between the parties and that the order was contrary to Article II(3) NYC. In response, GA contended that this dispute did not fall under the scope of the arbitration agreement, which provided that all disputes, except those related to the collection of "exact" amounts (which it claimed was the case here), should be settled through arbitration. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of appeal) did not refer to the NYC. It noted that the dispute pertained to the recollection of an amount deemed "exact", which did not fall under the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal pursuant to the arbitration agreement. It thus confirmed that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris had jurisdiction to hear this dispute. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=182&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 31 January 2008 Parties Société ivoirienne de raffinage v. Société Teekay Shipping Norway AS et al Case number 06/07787 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An award was rendered in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, on 31 October 2005 in accordance with the OHADA Rules. The Société Ivoirienne de Raffinage brought an action to set aside the award before the Abidjan Court of Appeal (which was still pending at the time the French Courts were seized of and decided this matter). In an order issued on 15 March 2006, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. The Société Ivoirienne de Raffinage filed an appeal against this order, by which (i) it challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, (ii) requested that the proceedings be stayed pending the decision on the setting aside of the award of the Abidjan Court of Appeal, and (iii) claimed that the enforcement order was contrary to international public policy (Article 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order. It held that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris is the proper forum to seek an enforcement order of an award rendered abroad (and thus rejected the argument based on Article 1477 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies to domestic arbitration). It then rejected the request for a stay of the proceedings by noting that an international award is not anchored in any domestic legal order. As this was an award rendered in the context of the OHADA Treaty, its enforcement would only be subject to rules of the country in which its recognition and enforcement is sought. The Cour d'appel de Paris also held that Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not recognize the setting aside of an award in a foreign country to be a ground for refusing enforcement of an award; thus it noted that the pending decision of the Ivorian court will have no effect in France. The Cour d'appel de Paris then dismissed the claim based on a breach of international public policy since the Société Ivoirienne de Raffinage had not explained the arguments on which its appeal was based, while noting that the NYC, to which the Judicial Cooperation Agreement between France and Côte d'Ivoire refers for the recognition and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, allows the application of a more favorable domestic law, such as French law. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=181&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Bernard Hanotiau ; Olivier Caprasse Source 25(6) Journal of International Arbitration 721 (2008) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France | Belgium Worldcat Number Worldcat : 775295935 ISBN 978-90-411-1274-3 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3007&opac_view=6
Author(s) Alexis Mourre Source 2008 (2) Revue de l’arbitrage 264 Subject(s) A. Articles on the 1958 New York Convention Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 775269506 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5967&opac_view=6
Author(s) Philippe Pinsolle Source 24(2) Arbitration International 277 (2008) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 5719333268 ISBN 978-90-411-1274-3 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3008&opac_view=6
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 29 June 2007 Parties Société PT Putrabali Adyamulia v. Société Rena Holding et Société Moguntia Est Epices Case number 05-18.053 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Bulletin 2007, I, N° 250, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary An Indonesian company (Putrabali) sold a cargo of white pepper to a French company (Est Epices, which later became Rena Holding). The contract provided for arbitration according to the Rules of Arbitration and Appeal of the International General Produce Association (IGPA). A dispute arose when the cargo was lost in a shipwreck. The Indonesian company commenced arbitration in London in accordance with the IGPA Rules. In an award dated 10 April 2001, the arbitral tribunal held that Rena Holding's refusal to pay was "well-founded". Putrabali challenged the award on a point of law before the High Court on the basis of the Arbitration Act 1996 for England and Wales, which partially set aside the award and held that the Rena Holding's failure to pay for the cargo amounted to a breach of contract. In a second award dated 21 August 2003, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of Putrabali and ordered Rena Holding to pay the contract price. An enforcement order was issued by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowing recognition and enforcement of the 2001 award in France. Putrabali challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) of 31 March 2005 which dismissed the appeal against the enforcement order, on the grounds that, inter alia, the setting aside of an arbitral award in a foreign country does not prevent the interested party from seeking enforcement of the award in France. Further, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that the enforcement of the 2001 award would not be contrary to international public policy. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris. It reasoned that an international arbitral award, which is not anchored in any national legal order, is a decision of international justice whose validity must be ascertained with regard to the rules applicable in the country where its recognition and enforcement are sought. Pursuant to Article VII NYC, it held that Rena Holding was allowed to seek enforcement in France of the 2001 award rendered in London in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the IGPA rules and could avail itself of the French rules on international arbitration, which do not list the setting aside of an award in the country of origin as a ground for refusing the recognition and enforcement of that award. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=176&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 18 January 2007 Parties Société Lesbats et Fils v. M. Volker le docteur Grub Case number 05/10887 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An ICC award was rendered in Brussels on 23 July 2004 in favor of a German company. In an order issued on 7 March 2005, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. The award was then set aside by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Brussels First Instance Court) on 16 November 2006, which ruled that the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld jurisdiction without an arbitration agreement. Appealing the enforcement order, the opposing side argued that the recognition and enforcement in France of an award which was set aside in its country of origin would be contrary to Articles 1498 and 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to the NYC. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order. It reasoned that Article VII NYC provides for the application of domestic law which is more favorable to the enforcement of awards, in this case Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the setting aside of the award in the country of origin is not a ground for refusing enforcement. The Cour d'appel de Paris added that the rule according to which the setting aside of an arbitral award in a foreign country does not affect the right of the interested party to request the enforcement of the award in France (since the arbitrator is not part of the national legal order of the country of origin) constitutes a fundamental principle under French law. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=175&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 21 November 2006 Parties Société Groupama Transports v. Société MS Régine Hans und Klaus Heinrich KG Case number 05-21.818 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | VII | VII(1) Source Bulletin 2006 I N° 502 p. 447, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary A French company (Deher Frères) entered into a contract with a German company (MS Regine Hans und Klaus Heinrich KG), for the transportation of a passenger ship from Toulon to Pointe-à-Pitre on 31 March 1999. The ship was damaged. The insurer of the French company (Groupama) commenced proceedings before domestic courts. The Cour d'appel de Basse-Terre (Basse-Terre Court of Appeal) dismissed the action and referred the parties to arbitration. Groupama challenged this decision on the grounds that it was not bound by the arbitration agreement included in the contract and that the lower courts had failed to establish that the French company (and its insurer) had knowledge of the content of the said arbitration agreement. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) reasoned that the NYC provides for the application of a more favorable domestic law concerning the recognition of the validity of arbitration agreements. It noted that the principles of validity of international arbitration agreements and of Compétence-Compétence preclude a national judge from ruling on the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement before the arbitral tribunal has ruled on these matters, except if the agreement is manifestly void or not applicable, which it held was not the case here. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=174&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 11 July 2006 Parties Société Generali France Assurances et al. v. Société Universal Legend et al. Case number 05-18.681 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Bulletin 2006 I N° 365 p. 313, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary A bill of lading for the transportation of goods was signed on 6 August 2002, which referred to a charter-party agreement dated 22 July 2002. The goods were damaged during transportation. The import company sought damages against the insurance companies before the Tribunal de commerce de Bordeaux (Commercial Court of Bordeaux). The insurance companies requested the joinder of the other parties to the agreement, which invoked the arbitration clause in the charter-party agreement and requested suspension of the proceedings until the arbitral tribunal ruled on its own jurisdiction. The Cour d'appel de Bordeaux (Bordeaux Court of Appeal) dismissed the action and referred the parties to arbitration. The insurance companies challenged this decision on the grounds that they were not bound by the arbitration agreement and that the lower courts had failed to establish the parties' knowledge of the arbitration agreement included in the contract by reference. They also claimed that the arbitration agreement was manifestly null and void and therefore that the decision of the Cour d'appel de Bordeaux was contrary to Article II NYC, Article 1492 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 1134 of the Civil Code. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) upheld the decision of the lower courts but did not refer to the NYC. It reasoned that the charter-party agreement contained an arbitration agreement which was binding upon the successive holders of the bill of lading. It held that the insurance companies failed to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement was manifestly void and, therefore, confirmed that the Tribunal de Commerce de Bordeaux lacked jurisdiction to hear this dispute and that the arbitrators should rule on the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=173&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 15 June 2006 Parties Legal Department du Ministère de la Justice de la République d'Irak v. Société Fincantieri Cantieri Navali Italiani, Société Finmeccanica et Société Armamenti E Aerospazio Case number 05/05404 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary Three contracts were entered into by the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and three Italian companies (Fincantieri Cantieri Navali Italiani, Finmeccanica and Armamenti e Aerospazio), containing an arbitration clause. The Italian companies launched proceedings before Italian Courts. The Genoa Court of Appeal found that it had jurisdiction to rule on this dispute on 7 May 1994, by holding that the arbitration agreements contained in the three contracts were invalid in accordance with Article II NYC. In an order issued on 19 October 1994, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed the enforcement in France of the decision of the Genoa Court of Appeal in application of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968. Appealing this decision, the Legal Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Iraq (acting on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Iraq) argued that the Brussels Convention was not applicable, as arbitration falls outside its scope and that the Genoa Court of Appeal decision cannot be rendered enforceable on the basis of the France-Italy Convention of 3 June 1930 on the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as the decision was rendered by a court which, under that Convention, did not have jurisdiction. In this respect, the Government of the Republic of Iraq contended that the Genoa Court of Appeal should have declined jurisdiction to rule on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, in consideration of Article II NYC which compels national courts to refer the parties to arbitration. Lastly, it claimed that the decision was contrary to public policy and international public policy and that there had been fraud. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) reversed the enforcement order and dismissed the request for enforcement of the decision of the Genoa Court of Appeal. It held that the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 did not apply to the decision of the Genoa Court of Appeal and that therefore the order must be overturned. As to the jurisdiction of the Genoa Court of Appeal to rule on the validity of the arbitration agreement, the Cour d'appel de Paris reasoned that when there is an arbitration agreement, and even though no arbitral tribunal had been seized of the matter, national courts must decline jurisdiction, unless a prima facie review shows that the agreement is manifestly void or inapplicable. It then held that the decision of the Genoa Court of Appeal, which found that the arbitration agreements were not valid on the grounds of the embargo established by the United Nations Resolution of 1990, was rendered by a court which did not have jurisdiction and thus could not be enforced in France. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=172&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 07 June 2006 Parties Copropriété Maritime Jules Verne et al v. Société American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Case number 03-12.034 Applicable NYC Provisions II | VII | VII(1) Source Bulletin 2006 I N° 287 p. 251, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary The co-ownership Jules Vernes and the owners of the "Tag Heuer" ship, initiated proceedings before the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris (Commercial Court of Paris) in order to obtain compensation for damage to the ship. The American classification company (American Bureau of Shipping) challenged the jurisdiction of French courts on the basis of the arbitration agreement contained in the classification contract providing for arbitration in New York. The Tribunal de commerce de Paris and the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) dismissed the case and referred the parties to arbitration in accordance with Articles II and VII(1) NYC. Following a decision of the Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) reversing the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris, the case was remanded before the Cour d'appel de Paris which held that French courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Jules Vernes co-ownership challenged this decision on the ground that Article VII NYC allows only for the application of a more favorable domestic law when such law allows such parties to avail themselves of an arbitral award, but does not grant domestic law precedence regarding the conditions in which national courts must refuse to hear a dispute when there is an arbitration agreement. They also claimed that the arbitration agreement was manifestly inapplicable to them given that they were not signatories to the classification contract and that therefore the decision was contrary to Article 1458 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Cour de cassation affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris. It reasoned that the NYC reserves the right to apply domestic law in situations where it is more favorable for the recognition and validity of the arbitration agreement and that the principle of validity of international arbitration agreements and the principle according to which arbitrators have jurisdiction to decide on their own jurisdiction are material rules of French international arbitration law. It then noted that the combination of these principles preclude French Courts from carrying out a substantive, in-depth examination of the arbitration agreement, except in cases where the agreement is void or manifestly inapplicable. On this basis and in light of the complex factual and legal analysis of the dispute, the Cour de cassation held that the Cour d'appel de Paris rightly concluded that as the arbitration agreement was not manifestly inapplicable, the French judge had encroached on the arbitrators' jurisdiction. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=171&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 29 September 2005 Parties Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile de l'Emirat de Dubaï v. Société International Bechtel Co. Case number 2004/07635 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 20 February 2002, a sole arbitrator ruled in favor of a company registered in Panama (International Bechtel Co.) in a dispute against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of the Emirate of Dubai (DAC). The award was subsequently set aside by the Dubai Supreme Court on 15 May 2004. In the meantime, International Bechtel sought to enforce the award in France, which was granted by an order of the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris). At the time, the United Arab Emirates was not a party to the NYC and the 1991 Convention on judicial cooperation between France and United Arab Emirates applied to the recognition of arbitral awards. Appealing this decision, DAC requested full recognition, on the basis of the 1991 Convention on judicial cooperation, of the Dubai Supreme Court decision upholding the setting aside of the award. It further argued that the award may not be enforced in France since it did not meet the requirements of the 1991 Convention (which, according to it, provided for the exhaustion of local remedies and the enforceability of the award in the country of origin) and was set aside in application of the law chosen by the parties governing the arbitral procedure. It also claimed that the enforcement judge's disregard of the 1991 Convention constituted an excess of power, that the sole arbitrator did not comply with his mandate (Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure) and that the recognition and enforcement of the award was contrary to international public policy (Article 1502 5°). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed DAC's action. It reasoned that the condition relied upon by DAC whereby all recourse must be exhausted in the country of origin before the enforcement of the award may be granted in France is contrary to French fundamental principles of arbitration aiming at facilitating international circulation of awards (which do not foresee the setting aside of an award as a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement). It noted that these principles are applicable in the context of the 1991 Convention which was also concluded to facilitate recognition of awards between the two States, especially since the United Arab Emirates was not a party to the NYC, which reserves the right to apply more favorable French law allowing for the enforcement of an award having been set aside at the seat of the arbitration. The Cour d'appel de Paris then held that decisions rendered following annulment proceedings (similarly to enforcement orders) do not have any international effect outside the country where they have been rendered. It thus examined the grounds for the enforcement of the award, irrespective of the annulment of the award by the Dubai Supreme Court and held that the enforcement of the award was not contrary to the 1991 Convention. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=169&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 06 July 2005 Parties M. Golshani v. Gouvernement de la République islamique d’Iran Case number 01-15.912 Source Bulletin 2005 I N° 302 p. 252, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary An individual seized the Iran-US Claims Tribunal on 19 January 1982 to obtain compensation for the alleged expropriation of his shares in various companies. An award was rendered on 2 March 1993 which dismissed his claims. In an order issued on 1 February 1999, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. The individual challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) which had upheld the enforceability of the award in France, on the grounds that the Cour d'appel de Paris distorted his submissions by stating that he had not invoked the NYC to challenge the enforcement order, whereas he had argued that since the High Court of London had refused to apply the NYC for the enforcement of an award rendered by the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the enforcement order should be overturned pursuant to the NYC. He also claimed that the decision was contrary to Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure given that the arbitral tribunal ruled in the absence of an arbitration agreement since the Treaty instituting the Iran-US Claims Tribunal could not be considered as an arbitration agreement to which a private party may subscribe. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris but did not refer to the NYC. It noted that the individual initiated the arbitration before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal and participated to the proceedings for over nine years without raising any objection. It thus held that the individual was estopped from claiming that the Iran-US Claims Tribunal had ruled without an arbitration agreement or on the basis of an agreement which was null and void. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=168&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Basse-Terre (Court of Appeal of Basse-Terre) Date 18 April 2005 Parties Société Groupama Transports v. Société MS Régine Hans und Klaus Heinrich KG Case number 04/00597 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Basse Terre
Languages French Summary A French company, “Deher Frères”, entered into a contract with a German company, “MS Regine”, for the transportation of a passenger ship from Toulon to Pointe-à-Pitre, under the FIOS Rules pursuant to a booking note issued in Amsterdam on 31 March 1999 and a bill of lading dated 21 April 1999. It was agreed that the loader would be responsible for the handling of the ship. The ship was damaged on 21 April 1999 during boarding operations. On 19 April 1999, the insurer of Deher Frères, Groupama, commenced proceedings before the Tribunal Mixte de Commerce de Basse-Terre (Commercial Court of Basse-Terre), claiming damages against MS Regine . MS Regine objected in limine litis to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Mixte de Commerce by invoking the arbitration clause provided under Article 35 of the booking note. On 7 January 2004, the Tribunal Mixte de Commerce found that it lacked jurisdiction and referred the Parties to arbitration before the Chambre Artisanale d’Hambourg. Groupama objected to this decision (by means of a “contredit”) before the Cour d’appel de Basse-Terre (Basse-Terre Court of Appeal) on the grounds that it was contrary to Article II(2) NYC, as the contract containing the arbitration clause had been communicated to Deher Frères on 26 April 1999, i.e. after the ship was damaged. The Cour d'appel de Basse-Terre dismissed the action and referred the parties to arbitration. It first noted that the validity of the arbitration clause was governed by Article II NYC; and added that Article II(2) NYC included “agreement in writing” included in “an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”. It then noted that, on the basis of the documents produced by the Parties, it was established that the ship was presented to the loader on 21 April 1999 pursuant to the booking note issued 20 days before transportation and that its terms were known to Deher Frères on 2 April 1999. It noted further that the loading of the ship was done in accordance with the booking note, without any objections being raised by the loader from 31 March to 21 April 1999. On this basis, the Cour d’appel de Basse-Terre held that the owner of the ship had knowledge of the arbitration agreement and that therefore the arbitration agreement was binding on its insurer. affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=906&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 24 February 2005 Parties Société Sidermetal v. Société Arcelor International Export Case number 2004/03224 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An arbitral award was rendered on 18 February 2000 against an Italian company (Sidermetal) for breach of its obligations under a contract concluded in 1998 with a company registered in Luxembourg (Arselor). The Italian company commenced an action to set aside the award and, pursuant to Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure, it argued that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction given that it had never agreed to the arbitration agreement contained in the contract which it had not signed. It thus claimed that an arbitration agreement, under the meaning of Article II(2) NYC, did not exist. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) dismissed the action to set aside without referring to the NYC. It noted that, following a first contract concluded between Sidermetal and Arselor which contained an arbitration agreement, the latter had, via exchange of correspondence, concluded a new contract, a copy of which was vested with the seal of Sidermetal, signed by both parties and which contained an arbitration agreement. It then reasoned that an international arbitration agreement does not need to comply with any formal requirement, but is subject to a principle of validity relying upon the sole intention of the parties and held that, in the case at hand, there was sufficient evidence of the consent of the parties. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=166&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 June 2004 Parties Société Bargues Agro Industries v. Société Young Pecan Company Case number 2003/09894 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An arbitral award was rendered in Antwerp (Belgium) on 28 June 2002 in favor of a US company (Young Pecan). In an order issued on 7 April 2003, the President of the Tribunal de Grande instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed the enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the opposing party (Bargues) requested a stay of proceedings pending an application to set aside the award that had been made before the First Instance Court of Antwerp in accordance with Article VI NYC. Alternatively, Bargues argued that (i) the arbitration agreement was null and void (Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure), since the confirmation orders containing the arbitration clause had been signed by an unauthorized employee, (ii) the arbitral tribunal had not been properly constituted (Article 1502 2°) given that the Chairman lacked independence, and (iii) the enforcement of the award would have been contrary to international public policy (Article 1502 5°). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) refused to suspend proceedings and confirmed the enforcement order. Regarding the suspension of proceedings, the Cour d'appel de Paris reasoned that pursuant to Article VII NYC, Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which, as opposed to Article V(1)(e) NYC, does not list the setting aside of an award as a ground for refusing its recognition and enforcement in France) was applicable. It then noted that given that the award was rendered in the context of an international arbitration, and as such was not anchored in the national legal order of Belgium, the potential setting aside of the award in the country of origin does not impact the existence of the award in a way that would prevent its recognition and enforcement in other national legal order. As a result, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that Article VI NYC, which refers to Article V NYC by authorizing the court in charge of the enforcement of the award to suspend proceedings, is of no use in the context of the recognition and enforcement of an award under Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It then dismissed the other grounds for refusing the enforcement of the award in France. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=165&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 18 March 2004 Parties Société Synergie v. Société SC Conect Case number 2001/18372, 2001/18379 & 2001/18382 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(2) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary Three arbitral awards were rendered in Romania on 29 May 1998 following a dispute between a French company (Synergie) and a Romanian company (Conect). In three orders issued on 14 May 2001, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the awards in France. Appealing these decisions, Synergie objected, with respect to the request for enforcement, to the lack of translation of the award by an expert recorded on the list of experts of the court contrary to Article 1499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to the fact that incomplete awards had been notified to it. It argued further that (i) the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred to it (Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure), (ii) due process was violated (Article 1502 4°) and (iii) the arbitral tribunal breached "provisions of international public policy" (Article 1502 5°). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement orders and dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the grounds for refusing enforcement of an award listed under Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure are exhaustive and that therefore the fact that the award had not been translated by a French sworn translator (but by a Romanian expert) did not constitute a ground for refusing enforcement. It then held that Article IV NYC requires the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award to produce a translation of the said award in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent, but does not provide that the translation be made by a sworn translator recorded on the list of experts of the court. Lastly, it noted that a full translation of the award had been produced during the proceedings. The Cour d'appel de Paris then dismissed the other grounds for refusing enforcement. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=164&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Eric Loquin Source 2003 (7) Revue du Droit des Affaires Internationales / International Business Law Journal 747 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 12361712 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6257&opac_view=6
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 04 December 2002 Parties Société American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) v. Copropriété Maritime Jules Verne et al Case number 2001/17293 Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary A US company (ABS) proceeded in 1992 to the classification of a ship (Tag Heuer) at the request of its constructor (Tencara). ABS' Specific Conditions, containing an arbitration agreement (which provided for arbitration in New York), were attached to the classification request. Tencara proceeded with payment and each invoice referred to ABS' General Conditions containing the arbitration agreement. The ship was then damaged. At the request of the insurance companies, an expert determination was ordered by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris), which held ABS partially responsible. The owner of the ship (the Jules Vernes co-ownership) and the insurance companies commenced proceedings before the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris (Commercial Court of Paris), which found that it had jurisdiction over the dispute. In the meantime, ABS initiated arbitral proceedings in New York against the Jules Vernes co-ownership and the insurance company of Tag Heuer, after a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal declared that they were bound by the arbitration agreement. ABS challenged the decision of the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris and of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) which had upheld that French Courts had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court) reversed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris on the ground that it had failed to establish that the arbitration agreement was manifestly null and void, which constitutes the only exception to the principle according to which arbitrators have jurisdiction to decide on their own jurisdiction and to rule on the existence, validity and applicability of an arbitration agreement. The case was remanded before the Cour d'appel de Paris. ABS invoked the principle of Compétence-Compétence and argued that there was no need to refer to the NYC. The Jules Verne co-ownership argued that article II NYC should prevail over Article 1458 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the conditions provided under Article II NYC were not met since the arbitration arbitration was not applicable to it. It also claimed that there was a risk of denial of justice given that, according to the US Federal Arbitration Act, the arbitrators cannot rule on their own jurisdiction. The Cour d'appel de Paris reasoned that Article VII NYC reserves the right to apply domestic law in situations where it is more favorable for the recognition and validity of the arbitration agreement and that this provision necessarily applies in the context of Article II NYC given the link between Article II NYC and Article V(1)(a) on the validity of an arbitration agreement. It also explained that the principle of validity of international arbitration agreements and the principle according to which arbitrators have jurisdiction to decide on their own jurisdiction are material rules of French international arbitration law which, as opposed to Articles II and V NYC on the formal requirement of an arbitration agreement, establish the validity of an arbitration agreement irrespective of any reference to domestic law. It further noted that the principle according to which arbitrators have priority to rule on the validity of an arbitration agreement is not provided under Article II NYC which only requires the court of a Contracting State to refer the parties to arbitration, unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. On the basis of these principles of French law, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that a French court may not proceed to an in-depth analysis of the arbitration agreement, the only exception being that the court may review the arbitration agreement in order to determine whether it is manifestly void or inapplicable. In the case at hand, it held that, in light of the complex facts of the case, the arbitration agreement could not be considered as manifestly void or inapplicable and therefore it found that it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute and referred the parties to arbitration. affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=163&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 28 June 2001 Parties M. Golshani v. Gouvernement de la République islamique d'Iran Case number 2000/08671 Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An individual seized the Iran-US Claims Tribunal on 19 January 1982 to obtain compensation for the alleged expropriation of his shares in various companies. An award was rendered on 2 March 1993 which dismissed his claims. In an order issued on 1 February 1999, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the arbitral award in France. Appealing this decision, the individual argued that the recognition and enforcement of the award is contrary to Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure given that the arbitral tribunal ruled in the absence of an arbitration agreement and invoked a decision of the High Court of 26 July 2005 which had refused to apply the NYC to an award rendered by the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It first rejected the argument of the Republic of Iran that the individual's appeal would be inadmissible. It then noted that the individual challenged the enforcement order under Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure and did not invoke (similarly to the Republic of Iran) the NYC. The Cour d'appel de Paris then held that the existence and effectiveness of the arbitration agreement is to be assessed, subject to due process and international public policy, on the common intention of the parties, reflecting the principle of validity of the arbitration agreement. It then explained that given that the Algiers Agreements created an arbitral tribunal to which legal and natural persons could submit their dispute, the natural persons that seized the Iran-US Claims Tribunal were bound by the arbitration agreement concluded in the Treaty. Given that the individual had seized the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that his argument based on the absence of an arbitration agreement was inadmissible. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=162&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 22 March 2001 Parties Gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie v. Compagnie Noga d'importation et d'exportation Case number 2000/10183 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary A Swiss company (Noga) entered into two loan agreements with the Government of the Russian Federation on 12 April 1991 and 29 January 1992 containing an arbitration agreement. An arbitral award was rendered in Stockholm on 15 May 1997 in favor of Noga. A second award was subsequently rendered on 15 May 1997. The Russian Federation commenced proceedings to set aside the awards which were dismissed by the First Instance Court of Stockholm on 17 June 1998, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Svea on 24 March 1999. Noga sought enforcement of the awards and of the decisions of Swedish Courts in France. The President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Paris First Instance Court) allowed enforcement of these awards in France and of the decisions on 15 March 2000 in accordance with the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 and the NYC. Appealing this decision, the Russian Federation argued, inter alia, that the Tribunal of Grande Instance de Paris exceeded its powers since it could not grant enforcement in the context of adversary proceedings. It also claimed that, in reviewing the awards with regard to the conditions set forth in Article V NYC, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris breached Article III NYC, which prohibits imposing more onerous conditions on the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than those imposed for domestic awards, since the procedure would result in assessing twice the international regularity of the awards. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) which found that the "appel-nullité" was inadmissible, confirmed the enforcement orders and dismissed the appeal. As to the alleged breach of Article III NYC, it reasoned that this provision allows the Contracting States to define their own rules regarding the enforcement procedure, subject to not imposing substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than those which are imposed for domestic arbitral awards. It then held that even though the enforcement of awards is usually granted through ex parte proceedings (which is not mandatory under French law but results from the courts' practice and consistent jurisprudence), the fact that enforcement was granted in the context of adversary proceedings, which is always a possibility, is not contrary to Article III NYC in the absence of any discrimination. follows : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=161&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 17 October 2000 Parties Agence pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar (ASECNA) v. M. Issakha N'Doye Case number 98-11.776 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(1) Source Bulletin 2000 I N° 243 p. 160, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary An award was rendered in Dakar in a dispute between the ASECNA (Agence pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar) and an individual regarding his dismissal. In an order issued on 8 July 1996, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. ASECNA challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) of 16 October 1997 which had upheld the enforcement order on the grounds that the award in dispute was a domestic award (as opposed to an international award) and that, therefore, the suspensive effect of the action to set aside the award initiated in Senegal precluded the enforcement of the award abroad in accordance with Article V(1)(e) NYC. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris. It reasoned that Articles 1498 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of awards apply both to international awards and awards rendered abroad, irrespective of whether these awards are considered, in the country where they were rendered, as domestic or international awards. The Cour de Cassation then held that pursuant to the NYC (to which the French-Senegal Convention refers) and Article VII NYC, French international arbitration rules, which are more favorable to the enforcement of arbitral awards, must apply. Given that Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not list as a ground for refusing enforcement the existence of an action which has a suspensive effect on the enforceability of the award, the Cour de cassation dismissed the individual's claim. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=159&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel d'Orléans (Court of Appeal of Orléans) Date 05 October 2000 Parties Société Recam Sonofadex v. Société Cantieri Rizzardi de Gianfranco Rizzardi Case number 99/02678 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel d'Orléans
Summary An award was rendered in Italy on 22 February 1999 in favor of an Italian Company (Rizzardi). In an order issued on 28 June 1999, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Blois (First Instance Court of Blois) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the losing party (Recam) argued, inter alia, that (i) enforcement should be rejected pursuant to the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, which applies to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, (ii) the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance lacked jurisdiction to grant the enforcement of the award by means of an ex parte order, (iii) enforcement should not be granted pending the action initiated before the Rome Court of Appeal which has a suspensive effect under Italian law, and that (iv) due process had been violated and the enforcement would be contrary to public international policy. The Cour d'appel d'Orléans (Orléans Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It first held that the Brussels Convention of 1968 does not apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and that, given that France and Italy are parties to the NYC, the reciprocity reservation made by France was satisfied. It then reasoned that, pursuant to article III NYC, French procedural rules are applicable as to the enforcement of an award in France and that the enforcement order complied with the provisions of Article 1478 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As to the effect of the pending proceedings before the Rome Court of Appeal, the Cour d'appel d'Orléans ruled that, in accordance with articles V(1)(e) and VI NYC, enforcement may be refused only when the award has been suspended in the country where it was rendered. If a request for suspension of the award has been made but not granted, the court in charge of the enforcement in France has the possibility to adjourn the decision, should it be deemed necessary. It then noted that even though Recam had initiated proceedings which have a suspensive effect, a suspension of the award had not been granted since the Rome Court of appeal had rejected the recourse for suspension of the decision of the Tribunal of Latina allowing enforcement of the award in Italy. Lastly, it found that due process has not been violated and that enforcement was not contrary to international public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=158&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 27 July 2000 Parties Gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie v. Compagnie Noga d'importation et d'exportation Case number 615/2000 Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary Two arbitral awards were rendered in favor of a Swiss company (NOGA) in a dispute against the Russian Federation on 1 February and 15 May 1997 in Stockholm. The Russian Federation commenced proceedings to set aside the awards which were dismissed by the First Instance Court of Stockholm on 17 June 1998, whose decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Svea on 24 March 1999. Upon Noga's request, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed the enforcement of these awards and decisions in France on 15 March 2000. Appealing this decision through summary proceedings, the Russian Federation requested the suspension of the provisional enforcement of the awards be granted by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris in accordance with French law, the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 and the NYC. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) suspended the provisional enforcement attached to the 15 March 2000 decision without referring to the NYC. It reasoned that the provisional enforcement provided in the enforcement orders resulted in allowing the immediate enforcement of the awards, notwithstanding the fact that the Russian Federation had challenged the 15 March 2000 decision. It then held that the court in charge of enforcement of awards may only decide whether to grant or to refuse enforcement, but may not authorize the provisional enforcement of an award, given that under French law, enforcement orders may be appealed in accordance with Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which appeal has the effect of suspending the enforcement of the awards. It therefore found that it did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris to grant such provisional enforcement of the awards. followed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=157&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Emmanuel Gaillard Source Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention, ICCA Congress Series No. 9, Paris, A.J. van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International, 505 (1999) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 42296224 ISBN 978-90-411-1274-3 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3006&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
External ResourceExternal Resource
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 02 April 1998 Parties Compagnie française d'études et de construction Technip (Technip) v. Entreprise nationale des engrais et des produits phytosanitaires (Asmidal) Case number 97/6929 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An ICC award was rendered in Zurich on 8 July 1996 in favor of an Algerian Company (ASMIDAL). In an order issued on 6 January 1997, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the losing party (Technip) argued that the enforcement order should be overturned pursuant to Article 1502 of the Code of Civil procedure given that (i) the arbitral tribunal had wrongly upheld jurisdiction, (ii) the arbitral tribunal had not properly been constituted, (iii) the arbitral tribunal had not complied with the mandate conferred upon it, (iv) due process had been violated, and (v) recognition and enforcement was contrary to international public policy. In response, ASMIDAL claimed that only the provisions of the NYC should be applied. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the action. It first reasoned that the procedure pertaining to the enforcement of the award in France is subject to the conditions set forth by both the NYC, ratified by France and Switzerland, and French rules on enforcement of awards. It added that the control of the regularity of an award by French Courts in order to allow its integration in French legal order may be based on either the NYC or French law (notably, Articles 1498 and 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure); while noting that pursuant to Article VII NYC, the provisions of French law which are more favorable to the enforcement of the award must prevail. It then dismissed each claim for refusing enforcement of the award, after noting that the provisions of French law invoked (Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure) are similar to that of the NYC. In this respect, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that (i) Article V(1)(a) NYC and Article 1502 1° (on whether the arbitral tribunal ruled without an arbitration agreement or on the basis of an arbitration agreement which was null and void) address similar situations, (ii) Article V(1)(b) NYC and Article 1502 4° (violation of due process) have the same scope, except that the latter refers to the principles of French law in an international context, (iii) Article V(1)(c) NYC and Article 1502 3° (as to the obligation of the arbitral tribunal to comply with the mandate conferred upon it) have the same scope, and (iv) Article 1502 includes the same provisions as Article V(1)(d) NYC (regarding the constitution of the arbitral tribunal). Lastly, it ruled that Article 1502 5° (as to the violation of international public policy) is in "perfect harmony" with Article V(2)(b) NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=153&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 24 March 1998 Parties Société Excelsior Film TV v. Société UGC-PH Case number 95-17.285 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary An award was rendered in Rome in favor of an Italian company (Excelsior) against a French company (UGC-PH). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) refused enforcement of the award in France by ruling that it was contrary to international public policy as one of the arbitrators did not fulfill the requirement of impartiality. Excelsior challenged this decision on the grounds that the Cour d'appel de Paris not only had disregarded the terms of the dispute and distorted the foreign award, but had also violated the NYC, whose provisions prevail over domestic law and which allows for a refusal of enforcement on the basis of public policy if it relates to the recognition and enforcement of the award and not, as it did, to the Court's decision-making process. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris and dismissed the action. It reasoned that the provisions of Article V(2)(b) NYC are essentially identical to those of Article 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure, in that they allow refusal of enforcement of an award which was rendered abroad in violation of the public policy of the country where the enforcement is sought. In the case at hand, the Cour de Cassation held that that the constitution of the arbitral tribunal violated due process and that therefore the award was contrary to French public policy under both Article V(2)(b) NYC and Article 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=152&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Albert Jan van den Berg Source 9 (2) Bulletin de la Cour Internationale d'Arbitrage de la CCI 15 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 73080230 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6260&opac_view=6
Author(s) Jan Paulsson Source 9 (1) Bulletin de la Cour Internationale d'Arbitrage de la CCI 14 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 73080230 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6256&opac_view=6
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 23 October 1997 Parties Société Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation (I.A.I.G.C.) v. Société Banque arabe et internationale d'investissement (B.A.I.I.) Case number 96/80232 Applicable NYC Provisions III | VI | VII Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 17 November 1984, the International and Arab Investment Bank (BAII) granted a loan to the Baghdad Sewerage Board (BSB), an Iraqi public entity. It subsequently subscribed an insurance agreement with the Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee International Corporation (IAIGC), garanteeing part of the loss if may suffer in case of a default of payment by BSB. When BSB defaulted, IAIGC paid at first but later refused when BAII did not comply with the Arab nationality requirement. BAII then filed a Request for arbitration and an award was rendered in Jordan in its favor. In an order issued on 4 July 1995, 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, IAIGC argued that (i) there was no award under the meaning of Article 1498 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (ii) due process had been violated (article 1502 4°), (iii) the arbitral tribunal ruled without an arbitration agreement (Article 1502 1°) and without complying with the mandate conferred upon it (Article 1502 3°), and (iv) the recognition and enforcement of the award was contrary to international public policy (Article 1502 5°). In addition, IAIGC sought a stay of the proceedings pending the action to set aside the award which was initiated before Jordan Courts in accordance with Article VI NYC. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the NYC applied (as it had been ratified by Koweit, Jordan and France) and that according to Article III and VII NYC, the court in charge of the enforcement of the award may not refuse enforcement when its domestic law allows it. It then held that the requirements for enforcement of an award under French law were satisfied in the case at hand and that the fact that the award had not been approved by Jordan Courts (as provided by Jordan law) had no bearing on the enforcement procedure. It then dismissed IAIGC's claims based on Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As to the request for stay of the proceedings, the Cour d'appel de Paris reasoned that the existence of an action to set aside the award in the country where the award was rendered is not listed as a ground to refuse enforcement of an award in France under Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that it may not refuse enforcement for any ground other than those listed under the said provision. It then ruled that it would not be appropriate to stay proceedings. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=150&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 16 October 1997 Parties Agence pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar (ASECNA) v. M. Issakha N'Doye Case number 96/84842 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An individual was hired on 16 September 1985 by the ASECNA (Agence pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar). Following his dismissal, the individual commenced arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in his employment contract. An award was rendered in August 1994 in Senegal in his favor. In an order issued on 8 July 1996, 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, ASECNA argued that (i) the dispute was not capable of settlement by arbitration and that the enforcement order would be contrary to the French conception of international public policy, (ii) the award was not final since there was a pending action before the Dakar Court of Appeal and thus the recognition and enforcement of the award should be refused in accordance with Article 5(1)(e) NYC, and (iii) it benefited from immunity of jurisdiction and execution. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the action. It first noted that the France-Senegal Convention on Judicial Cooperation of 29 March 1974, provided that the recognition and enforcement of awards rendered in these countries shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the NYC. It then reasoned that Article V(2)(b) refers to the conception of international public policy of the country where enforcement in sought and not to internal public policy of that country. On this basis, it found that, even though employment dispute fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Conseils de Prud'hommes (Employment Tribunal) under French law, the fact that this dispute was settled by arbitration was not contrary to the fundamental principles of the French conception of international public policy. As to the fact that the award was not final, the Cour d'appel de Paris reasoned that since the France-Senegal Convention on Judicial Cooperation refers to the NYC, the Contracting Parties had implicitly consented to the exception under Article VII NYC which provides that the provisions of the NYC may not deprive a party of any right it may have to avail itself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon. It then held that French Court may only refuse enforcement in the limited number of situations listed at Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not include the situation set forth at Article V(1)(e) NYC, and that given that the award rendered in Senegal is an international award which is not anchored in the legal order of that country, its existence is not affected by the outcome of the appeal initiated before local courts and therefore its recognition and enforcement in France was not contrary to international public policy. Lastly, the Cour d'appel de Paris ruled that ASECNA had waived its immunity of jurisdiction by consenting to arbitration and that, given that the enforcement procedure of an award does not constitute an enforcement measure, the recognition and enforcement of the award does not affect ASECNA's immunity of execution. affirmed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=149&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 14 January 1997 Parties République arabe d'Egypte v. Société Chromalloy Aero Services Case number 95/23025 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 16 June 1988, the Arab Republic of Egypt and a US company (Chromalloy) entered into a contract for the supply of material, services and technical assistance for the management and maintenance of military aircraft. Following the termination of this agreement by the Arab Republic of Egypt, Chromalloy initiated arbitration proceedings as provided by the parties in the contract. An award was rendered on 24 August 1994, in Cairo in favor of Chromalloy. In an order issued on 4 May 1995, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France, whereas the enforcement of the award had been stayed and eventually set aside by the Cairo Court of Appeal. The Arab Republic of Egypt filed an appeal against the enforcement order. It contended that (i) the enforcement order violated the provisions of both the France-Egypt Convention on Judicial Cooperation of 15 March 1982 and the NYC, (ii) the arbitral tribunal did not comply with the mandate conferred upon it (Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure), violated due process (Article 1502 4°) and that the recognition and enforcement of the award was contrary to international public policy (Article 1502 5°). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It first noted that the France-Egypt Convention on Judicial Cooperation provides that the recognition and enforcement of awards rendered in these countries shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the NYC. In light of this general reference to the NYC, it reasoned that the Contracting States have implicitly consented to the exception under Article VII NYC which provides that the provisions of the NYC may not deprive a party of any right it may have to avail itself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon. It then held that French Courts may only refuse enforcement in the limited number of situations listed at Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not include the situation set forth in Article V NYC invoked by the Arab Republic of Egypt, and that given that the award rendered in Egypt was an international award which, by definition, is not anchored in the legal order of that State, its existence was not affected by its setting aside and therefore the recognition and enforcement of this award in France was not contrary to international public policy. The Cour d'appel de Paris then dismissed the other claims based on Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=147&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Hamid Gharavi Source 12(9) Mealey's International Arbitration Report 20 (1997) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 34947790 ISBN 90-411-2322-9 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3005&opac_view=6
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Montpellier (Court of Appeal of Montpellier) Date 05 November 1996 Parties Société C17 v. Société Fiorucci Case number 95/2695 Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5233&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) Date 04 July 1996 Parties Société Fieldworks-Inc v. Société Erim, Société Logic Instrument and Société Add-on Computer Distribution (A.C.D.) Case number 3603/96, 3703/96, 3998/96 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Versailles
Summary On 9 May 1994, A US company (Fieldworks) entered into a distribution agreement with a French company (Logic Instrument), containing an arbitration agreement. Following the termination of the agreement by Fieldworks, the French company initiated summary proceedings before the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise (Commercial Court of Pontoise) on 29 February 1996. On 15 March 1996, Fieldworks commenced arbitration before the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the distribution agreement. In an order issued on 28 March 1996, the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise found that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, rejected various claims of the French company (inter alia, a request for expertise) and granted provisional measures against Fieldworks and third parties. Appealing this decision, Fieldworks argued, inter alia, that the juge des référés (summary proceedings judge) of the Tribunal de commerce de Paris should have declined jurisdiction in accordance with Article II NYC and Article 1458 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal) upheld the order as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise. It held that even though an arbitration agreement requires in principle that domestic courts decline jurisdiction and refer the parties to arbitration, it does not prevent one of the parties from obtaining provisional measures on an urgent basis, which does not require a ruling on the merits of the dispute (falling under the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal), where it is justified by specific and exceptional circumstances. It then held that, in the case at hand, provisional measures were not justified and thus overturned the order issued by the Tribunal de Commerce de Pontoise in this respect. As to Logic Instrument's request for expertise, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled that, given that the dispute is being settled through arbitration, it is for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether to order an expertise. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=146&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 20 June 1996 Parties Société Le Pool d'Assurance des Risques Internationaux et Sociaux (P.A.R.I.S.) v. Société Razel Case number 94/26063 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary A French company (Razel) entered into an agreement with an Algerian company (SNS, whose rights and obligations had been assumed by another Algerian company, SIDER). The French company subsequently subscribed to an insurance agreement with the Pool d'Assurance des Risques Internationaux et Spéciaux (P.A.R.I.S.) in order to guarantee part of the loss it may suffer should SIDER breach its contractual obligations. A dispute arose between the parties and since P.A.R.I.S., as Razel's insurer, refused to cover the loss resulting from said dispute, the French company commenced an arbitration against its insurer and an award was subsequently rendered on 1 July 1994 in favor of Razel. P.A.R.I.S. commenced an action to set aside the award, arguing that the arbitral tribunal did not comply with the mandate conferred to it in accordance with Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure and had failed to take into account the alleged fraud committed by Razel. It argued further that the award should be set aside since its recognition and enforcement in France would be contrary to Algerian public policy and international public policy, which incorporates, according to Article V(2)(b) NYC, both the French conception of international public policy and Algerian national and international public policy, in that it is contrary to Article 700 of the Algerian Commercial Code and because the award contains a contradictory statement. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) dismissed the action to set aside the award. It first reasoned that the underlying award is an international award in that the transaction that gave rise to the dispute is international. As to the alleged violation of international public policy, the Cour d'appel de Paris did not refer to the NYC but found that the principles of Algerian public policy invoked by the French company were not contrary to the French conception of international public policy. It then dismissed the other claims based on Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the alleged fraud. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=112&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Hamid Gharavi Source 6 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 93 (1996) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 770622094 ISBN 90-411-2322-9 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3004&opac_view=6
Author(s) Jacques Ribs Source 1996 (96) Petites Affiches 15 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 716402690 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6255&opac_view=6
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 22 September 1995 Parties Société Dubois et Vanderwalle Sarl v. Société Boots Frites BV Case number 94.4957 Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary On 21 May 1985, a company registered in the Netherlands (Boots Frites) entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with a French company (Dubois) for the sale of its products in France. A dispute arose and Boots Frites commenced an arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement which provided that the award shall be rendered within three months from the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal was constituted on 25 August 1992 and the award was signed in December 1992 and January 1993, i.e. after the expiration of the three-month period. In an order issued on 7 October 1993, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny (First Instance Court of Bobigny) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the French company argued that (i) the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny lacked territorial jurisdiction, and (ii) the arbitral tribunal ruled in application of an arbitration agreement which had expired and therefore the order must be overturned pursuant to Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure. Boots Frites objected on the basis that enforcement of the award may not be refused pursuant to the NYC. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) overturned the enforcement order and refused enforcement of the award in France, without referring to the NYC. It first rejected the objection to jurisdiction by explaining that the rules on territorial jurisdiction under French law are not applicable to the enforcement of awards rendered abroad. As to the arguments based on Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it reasoned that the principle according to which the parties agree upon a time period for which the arbitral tribunal must perform its mandate, which may not be extended by the arbitral tribunal itself, is part of domestic and international public policy. As a consequence of the violation of this principle, it held that the recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to international public policy and refused to enforce the award pursuant to Article 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=145&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Bruno Leurent ; Nathalie Mayer-Fabre Source 13(1) ASA Bulletin 118 (1995) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France | Switzerland Worldcat Number Worldcat : 716343894 ISBN 978-90-411-2322-0 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3003&opac_view=6
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 29 November 1994 Parties CDF Chimie North America INC et al. v. Tolt Nielsen Incorporated et al. Case number 92-14.920 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary A French company (CDF Chimie France) chartered a vessel for the transportation of chemicals to a US company (CDF Chimie North America), which was carried out by another US company (Stolt Nielsen). The latter delivered a bill of lading to CDF Chimie North America which provided that transportation was governed by the charter-party agreement, a copy of which could be requested from the charter company or the loading company. A dispute arose after the vessel was damaged and the French company and CDF Chimie North America sued Stolt Nielsen and the owner of the vessel before French Courts, which objected to jurisdiction by invoking the arbitration agreement contained in the charter-party agreement. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) held that the arbitration agreement was binding upon CDF Chimie North American which had received the bill of lading. CDF Chimie North American challenged this decision. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) overturned the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris. It reasoned that, according to Article II NYC, a party is bound by an arbitration agreement if it has been brought to its attention and if it has consented to it, at the latest, at the time when it received the merchandise, after which it was bound by the charter-party agreement. It then held that CDF Chimie North American was not informed of the content of the charter-party agreement (which included the arbitration agreement) and therefore the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris did not comply with the provisions of the NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=141&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 23 March 1994 Parties Société Hilmarton Ltd v. Société Omnium de traitement et de valorisation (OTV) Case number 92-15.137 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(1) Source Bulletin 1994 I N° 104 p. 79, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary A French company (Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation - OTV) entrusted an English company (Hilmarton) with the task of providing advise and coordination for a bid to obtain and perform a contract for works in Algeria. Hilmarton relied on the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreement in order to obtain payment of the remaining balance of its fees. The award rendered in Geneva on 19 August 1988 dismissed this claim. The award was declared enforceable in France even though it had been set aside in Switzerland. Hilmarton challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) which upheld the enforcement order. It contended that, pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, the recognition and enforcement should have been refused since it has been set aside in Switzerland. It argued further that the Cour d'appel de Paris also violated Articles 1498 and 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure by granting effect to an award which had no legal existence since it had been set aside. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris and dismissed the action. Pursuant to Article VII NYC, it found that the Cour d'appel de Paris rightly held that OTV could avail itself of French rules pertaining to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in international arbitration and notably Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not include the same ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement of awards as set forth in Article V(1)(e) NYC. The Cour de cassation added that the award rendered in Switzerland was an international award which was not integrated into the legal order of that State and therefore continues to exist notwithstanding the notion that it had been set aside and its recognition in France was not contrary to international public policy. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=140&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 24 February 1994 Parties Ministère tunisien de l'Equipement v. Société Bec Frères and Société Grands Travaux d'Afrique Case number 92.23638 & 92.23639 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary In response to the Ministry of Equipment of the Republic of Tunisia's two calls for tender regarding the construction of two road segments, a French company (Bec Frères) and a Tunisian company (Grands Travaux d'Afrique) - which had formed a group of companies for the purpose of conducting the works jointly - submitted a joint bid for each segments. The Ministry awarded the group both contracts and entered into two agreements with the group, which contained an arbitration agreement. Difficulties arose between the parties during the course of the construction works, which resulted in the termination of the two agreements. Arbitration proceedings were initiated and awards were rendered on 8 February 1990 and 13 September 1990 in favor of the group. In two orders issued on 15 April 1991, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the two awards in France. Appealing these decisions, the Ministry relied on (i) the jurisdictional immunity of the State, (ii) the administrative nature of the contracts and the domestic nature of the awards subject to Tunisian law, (iii) the res judicata effect of decisions rendered by Tunisian courts which annulled the arbitration agreement, and (iv) Article V(1) NYC. In addition, it contented that the arbitral tribunal had ruled upon the matter without an arbitration agreement or on the basis of a void and lapsed agreement (Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure), the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted (Article 1502 2°) and due process was violated (Article 1502 3°). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement orders and dismissed the appeal. It first reasoned that the underlying awards were international awards since the transaction entailed a cross-border transfer of material, a transfer of know-how and a cross-border payment. Given that the Ministry of Equipment relied on Article V(1) NYC and Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Cour d'appel de Paris noted that, pursuant to Article VII NYC (ratified by both France and Tunisia), the provisions of the NYC do not deprive either party of the right to avail itself of an award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or Treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon. Consequently, it held that a French court cannot refuse enforcement when its domestic law would allow it and must, ex officio, ascertain whether this is the case. It thus decided to rule in light of the provisions of Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, on this basis, rejected each claim. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=139&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Charles Jarrosson Source 1994 (4) Revue de l'arbitrage 327 Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions France Worldcat Number Worldcat : 799490172 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5980&opac_view=6
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 09 November 1993 Parties Société Bomar Oil N.V. v. Entreprise tunisienne d'activités pétrolières (ETAP) Case number 91-15.194 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) Source Bulletin 1993 I N° 313 p. 218, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary By an exchange of telexes in August 1983, a Tunisian public entity (ETAP) and a company registered in the Netherlands Antilles (Bomar Oil) entered into an agreement for the sale of crude oil by ETAP, which referred to "other conditions" belonging to "those of the standard ETAP contract". A dispute arose and ETAP commenced arbitration in accordance with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreement included in the standard ETAP contract. Bomar objected to jurisdiction by arguing that the arbitration agreement, which was not included in the document signed by the parties, but only in a separate document to which reference was made in the main agreement, should be deemed non-existent. In an award of 25 January 1985, the arbitral tribunal rejected the objection to jurisdiction. The Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), ruling after the case had been remitted to it by the Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court), dismissed Bomar Oil's action to set aside the award. Bomar Oil appealed this decision by arguing that it violated Article II NYC, as well as Articles 1443, 1495 and 1499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the basis that it did not find that the existence of an arbitration agreement could have been mentioned during the exchange of telexes nor that the parties had regular business relations. It contended that this would have been the only way to assume that both parties had full knowledge of the content of the standard ETAP contract and, in particular, the arbitration agreement. The Cour de cassation affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Versailles and refused to set aside the award, without referring to the NYC. It held that in international arbitration, an arbitration agreement, by reference to a document in which it appears (such as the general conditions of a model contract), is valid, in the absence of any mention in the main contract, when the party against which the arbitration agreement is used is aware of the content of the document at the time the contract was entered into. It added that, even though it remained silent, this party accepted the incorporation of that document into the contract. It concluded that, in the case at hand, the Cour d'appel de Versailles had independently noted that Bomar Oil had accepted, without reservations, ETAP's proposals expressly referring to the standard ETAP contract of which it had previously received a copy. affirms : see also :
- VII / ARTICLE VII(1) / 2. ANALYSIS (ARTICLE VII(1)) / a. Domestic law more favourable than article II / §32
- 1. INTRODUCTION (II) / §6
- II / 2. ANALYSIS (II) / B. Meaning of 'agreement' / §21
- France / 11 October 1989 / France, Cour de cassation / Société Bomar Oil N.V. v. Entreprise tunisienne d’activités pétrolières (ETAP) / 87-15.094
- France / 20 January 1987 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Bomar Oil N.V. v. Entreprise tunisienne d'activités pétrolières (ETAP) / M 4683
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=138&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Grenoble (Court of Appeal of Grenoble) Date 13 September 1993 Parties Société C.F.T.E. v. Jacques Dechavanne Case number 2550/92 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Grenoble
Summary On 20 March 1991, two individuals sold their shares in two French companies to a German company (Martin Merkel). In the sale assignment agreement, the German company committed that each of the French companies (now, C.F.T.E) were to execute employment contracts with the two individuals. The agreement contained an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreement (seated in Switzerland). C.F.T.E refused to renew the employment contract of one of the individuals, as provided under the assignment agreement, who then decided to sue C.F.T.E before the Conseil des Prud'Hommes (Employment Tribunal), which ruled in his favor on 26 March 1992. Appealing this decision, C.F.T.E argued that French courts lack jurisdiction to hear this dispute and should have referred the parties to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement contained in the assignment agreement. The Cour d'appel de Grenoble (Grenoble Court of Appeal) reasoned that the assignment agreement is an international contract. It then ruled that an arbitration agreement contained in an international employment contract is valid, while noting that this was confirmed by the French Government in its letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, according to which France withdrew the commercial reservation made under the NYC. It noted further that in accordance with Article II NYC, France committed, without any reservation, to recognize "an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship". The Cour d'appel de Grenoble concluded that French courts lacked jurisdiction and overturned the decision of the Conseil des Prud'Hommes. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=137&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 10 March 1993 Parties Société Polish Ocean Line v. Société Jolasry Case number 91-16.041 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(1) Source Bulletin 1993 I N° 99 p. 66, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Summary On 13 August 1988, a Polish company (Polish Ocean Line - POL) entered into a representation agreement with a French company (Jolasry) containing an arbitration agreement. An arbitral award was rendered in Gdansk on 17 March 1990 in favor of Jolasry. On 12 April 1990, POL commenced an action to set aside the award before the Economic Court of Gdansk, which suspended the enforcement of the award on 22 May 1990. In the meantime, the award was declared enforceable in France on 30 April 1990. POL challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Douai (Douai Court of Appeal) dated 18 April 1991 which upheld the enforcement order on the ground that, in light of the pending action in Poland and the decision rendered by the Court of Gdansk, the refusal to suspend enforcement of the award in France was contrary to Articles 1498 and 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Douai and dismissed the action. It reasoned that Article VII NYC provides that the provisions of the NYC (to which France and Poland are parties) may not deprive a party of any right to avail itself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon. It then held that French courts may only refuse enforcement in the limited number of situations listed in Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not include the ground set forth in Article V(1)(e) NYC (i.e. where the award is either set aside or suspended in the country where it was rendered). It thus concluded that the Cour d'appel de Douai rightly found that the action to set aside the award in Poland and the suspension of enforcement of the award obtained in Poland could not justify a refusal to enforce the award in France. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=136&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
