sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
France / 18 April 2005 / France, Cour d'appel de Basse Terre / Société Groupama Transports v. Société MS Régine Hans und Klaus Heinrich KG / 04/00597
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
Eric Loquin / L'exécution des sentences arbitrales internationales au début du troisième millénaire. Bilan et perspective / 2003 (7) Revue du Droit des Affaires Internationales / International Business Law Journal 747 - 2003
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
