Available documents (23)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Argentina / 24 September 2019 / Argentina, Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation) / Deutsche Rückversicherung AG v. Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguro en liquidación et al. / 6461/2009/CS1
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Seychelles Court Seychelles, Supreme Court of Seychelles Date 23 November 2001 Parties Omisa Oil Management v. Seychelles Petroleum Company Ltd Case number Civil Side No 85 of 2000 Applicable NYC Provisions III | XIV Source [2001] SCSC 29 | online: SeyLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6361&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Austria Court Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Date 26 November 1997 Parties B**** Inc. v. S**** GmbH Case number 3Ob320/97y Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | XIV Source Languages German Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3892&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick Date 19 August 1991 Parties M.A. Industries, Inc. v. Maritime Battery Ltd. Case number F/M/48/91 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | II | II(1) | II(2) | III | IV | V | XIV Source 118 NBR (2d) 127 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5384&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Gujarat Date 04 May 1982 Parties Union of India and ors v. Lief Hoegh & Co and ors Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | XIV Source AIR 1983 Guj 34; (1983) 1 GLR 292 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Union of India (“Union”) entered into a charterparty with Lief Hoegh (“Lief”), which provided for arbitration under the UK Arbitration Act 1950 in London. A dispute arose and Union launched legal action against Lief before the High Court of Gujarat. Lief applied to have the action stayed in favour of arbitration, pursuant to Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”) (mirroring Article II(3) NYC). The High Court of Gujarat upheld Lief’s application, ordering a stay of the legal action in favour of arbitration. The High Court held that Section 3 of the 1961 Act applied when four requirements were satisfied: (i) there was an agreement to which Article II NYC applied; (ii) a person who was party to such an agreement had initiated legal action; (iii) the legal action pertained to a matter which fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and, (iv) the other party had taken no step in the legal action to indicate that he had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. The Court reasoned that, once these requirements were satisfied, Section 3 of the 1961 Act mandated that it refer the matter to arbitration, provided that the agreement was not void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The Court found the four conditions to be met on the facts. It then turned to an alternative argument advanced by Union, namely that the 1961 Act was wholly inapplicable to the present case as the charterparty was not a “commercial relationship” as understood in Section 2 of the 1961 Act (incorporating, in modified language, Articles I and II NYC). The Court rejected that argument too, holding that the term “commercial” is “a word of the largest import and takes in its sweep all the business and trade transactions in any of their forms”. Similarly unconvincing, the Court reasoned, was Union’s reliance on Article XIV NYC. The Court considered that there was no circumstance in which India would be applying the NYC in manner more expansive than that applied by other state parties to the NYC. After referring to Article I NYC, the High Court stressed that “the only limitation [to the application of NYC] is that [the dispute] must arise out of a contract which is commercial in nature”. The High Court concluded that granting a stay of the legal action in the present case would not amount to a denial of the sovereignty of the Indian government. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1376&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
20 th meeting [E/CONF.26/SR20 - E/2704 and Corr.1, E/2822 and Add.1 to 6,, E/CONF.26/2, E/CONF.26/3 and Add.1, E/CONF.26/4, E/CONF.26/7, E/CONF.26/L.16, L.28, L.49 and L.52]- 12/09/1958
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 5 June 1958, at 10.40 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions V | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV Language(s) French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3412&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 5 June 1958, at 2.45 p.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | XII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3413&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Meeting held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 10 June 1958, at 10.15 a.m Date 12/09/1958 Classification (first level) C. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, New York, 20 May - 10 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(b) | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3416&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Final Act and Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 10/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.14. Final Act and Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3392&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 09/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.11. Text of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as Provisionally Approved by Drafting Committee 6-9 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3389&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 05/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.9. Amendments by Governmental Delegations to the Drafts Submitted by the Working Parties and Further Suggested Drafts 3-5 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions XIV Language(s) Russian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3378&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 05/06/1958 Classification (first level) B. United Nations Conference On International Commercial Arbitration: Documents Classification (second level) B.10. Text of Articles Adopted by the Conference: 4-6 June 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions IX | X | XI | XIII | XIV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3384&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 24/04/1958 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.3. Activities of Inter-Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations in the Field of International Commercial Arbitration: Consolidated Report by the Secretary-General - 24 April 1958 Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | V | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(b) | VIII | XI | XIV Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3308&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 03/04/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Netherlands | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2)(b) | IX | XIV Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3301&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date 21/02/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Egypt | Sweden Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English | French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3298&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex I: Comments by Governements (General observations and then comments on each article) Annex II: Comments by Non-Governmental Organizations (General observations and then comments on each article). Date 31/01/1956 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.2. Comments by Governments and Organisations on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: January 1956 - March 1958 Country Austria | Belgium | Brazil | China | Denmark | France | India | Japan | Korea | Lebanon | Mexico | Philippines | Switzerland Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English | French | Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3297&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
Comments Annex: E/AC.42/4 - Draft Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Date 28/03/1955 Classification (first level) A. Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Comments by Governments and Organizations Classification (second level) A.1. ECOSOC: Report of the Committee on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: 18 March 1955 Country Australia | Belgium | Ecuador | Egypt | India | Sweden | United Kingdom Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI Language(s) English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3295&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Read DocumentAdobe Acrobat PDF
XIV / 1. ANALYSIS (XIV) / §1
1. Pursuant to article XIV, a Contracting State may only require another Contracting State to apply the Convention to the extent that it is itself bound by it. Article XIV is a general reciprocity clause that applies to obligations between Contracting States under all provisions of the Convention. This distinguishes article XIV of the Convention from article I(3), which contains a specific reciprocity provision that may be invoked by private parties in the context of enforcement proceedings.1
1. Albert Jan van den Berg, Article XIV 914 General Reciprocity Clause, XXVIII Y.B. COM. ARB 699 (2003). See also Patricia Nacimiento, Article XIV, in RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS: A GLOBAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW YORK CONVENTION 541, at 544 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento, D. Otto, N.C. Port eds., 2010).
See in context
2. As reflected in the travaux préparatoires, article XIV was originally drafted in almost identical wording as a second paragraph of the then article X addressing the rights and duties of federal or non-unitary contracting states (now article XI).2 As drafted at the time, this proposed reciprocity provision did not meet unanimous approval, as some delegations wished to clarify that it would only apply to federal states.3 It was not until the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration convened for the preparation and adoption of the Convention that the representative for Norway proposed an amendment for a general reciprocity clause that would stand as a separate article.4 A majority of the delegates accepted this amendment on the very last day of the Conference.
2. Travaux préparatoires, Report of the Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards, E/2704, E/AC.42/4/Rev.1, at 15-16, and E/2704, E/AC.42/4/Rev.1, Annex, at 5.
3. See for example the comments by Yugoslavia on article X: Travaux préparatoires, Comments by Governments on the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, E/2822/Add.6, Annex, at 2-3.
4. Travaux préparatoires, Consideration of the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Item 4 of the Agenda), Norway : proposed amendment to the draft Convention, E.CONF.26/L.28; Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Records of the Twenty-Fourth Summary Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.24, at 6-7.
See in context
3. Parties opposing enforcement of an arbitration agreement or an arbitral award have rarely invoked article XIV and its reciprocity requirement. Based on available case law at the time of this Guide, enforcement of an arbitral award has never been denied on the basis of article XIV.5
5. See e.g., Union of India, and others v. Lief Hoegh & Co. and others, High Court of Gujarat, India, 4 May 1982, AIR 1983 Guj 34; Audi NSU Auto Union A.G. v. Overseas Motors, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, United States of America, 9 August 1976, II Y.B. COM. ARB 252 (1977); M.A. Industries Inc. v. Maritime Battery Ltd., New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Canada, 19 August 1991, XVIII Y.B. COM. ARB 354 (1993); Odin Shipping Co. (Pte) Ltd. v. Aguas Industriales de Tarragona, Supreme Court, Spain, 4 October 1983, XI Y.B. COM. ARB. 528 (1986). See also, with respect to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement: McDermott International v Lloyds Underwriters of London, Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, United States of America, 14 February 1992, XVIII Y.B. COM. ARB. 472 (1993); Ken Acosta (US), et al. and others v. Master Maintenance and Construction Inc., et al. and others, Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, United States of America, 8 June 2006, 05-30126
See in context
4. One example of an unsuccessful attempt to rely on article XIV’s reciprocity requirement is found in Fertilizer Corporation of India v. IDI Management Inc., a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. An arbitral award was rendered in India against a U.S. corporation, which argued before the Court that it should not be enforced in the United States on grounds that India would not have enforced the award had it been rendered in the United States in its favour, and that therefore, “the reciprocity between India and the United States as required by the Convention [article XIV] was absent”.6 The contesting party further argued that article XIV requires courts to determine the extent to which India applies the Convention and whether India treats awards rendered in India in favour of Indian parties in a similar manner. The Court rejected this argument and enforced the award, finding that the Convention’s reciprocity requirement was satisfied in that case. It noted that article XIV gave “states a defensive right to take advantage of another state’s reservations with regard to territorial, federal or other provisions”. The Court added that, in any event, it was satisfied that Indian courts were not engaged in a “devious policy to subvert the Convention by denying non-Indians their just awards”.
See in context
5. In another case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit emphasized the importance of respecting the reciprocity undertaking in article XIV. The Court reasoned that the rights of U.S. citizens under the Convention in other countries depend on the extent to which the United States “implements the Convention within its own borders”.7
See in context
6. Leading commentators have confirmed that article XIV does not allow a Contracting State which has not made any reservation, to deny enforcement of an award rendered in another Contracting State which has made reservations. Conversely, a State which formulated a reservation under article I(3) would not be permitted to invoke the Convention against another Contracting State which had ratified the Convention without making any reservation.8
8. See Angela Kolbl, Commentary on Article XIV, in NEW YORK CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS: A COMMENTARY 529, at 531 (R. Wolff ed., 2012); Patricia Nacimiento, Article XIV, in RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS: A GLOBAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW YORK CONVENTION 541, at 544 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento, D. Otto, N.C. Port eds., 2010).
See in context
