Available documents (130)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Dominique Hascher / Les perspectives françaises sur le contrôle de la sentence internationale ou étrangère / 1(2) McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 1 (2015) - 2015
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
France / 19 June 2014 / France, Tribunal de commerce de Nanterre / Société Farmex Technologies v. Foreign Financing Projects Management Center of the Ministry of Finance (FFPMC), et al. / 2012R01140
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 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) 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) 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
