France / 21 February 1980 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / General National Maritime Transport Company v. Société Gotaverken Arendal A.B. / F 9224
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
| Date | 21 February 1980 |
| Parties | General National Maritime Transport Company v. Société Gotaverken Arendal A.B. |
| Case number | F 9224 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | I(3) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris |
| Summary | Under three contracts dated 19 December 1973, a Swedish company (AB Gotaverken) manufactured three oil tankers for a Libyan company (Libyan General Maritime Transport Organization, which later became General National Maritime Transport Company - GNMTC). The contracts contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under the aegis of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris. A dispute arose when GNMTC refused to take delivery of the oil tankers and an award was rendered on 5 April 1978 in favor of Gotaverken. GNMTC initiated an appeal against the award before French courts ("appel-nullité") to have the award set aside on various grounds. It argued, inter alia, that the reasoning of the award was contradictory and insufficient, and that it was contrary to public policy in that it imposed on GNMTC an obligation contrary to the rules of public order in Libya. Gotaverken argued that the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) should decline jurisdiction in favor of the Swedish Supreme Court before which the case was pending. It argued further that, given that the award had not been declared enforceable in France, the Cour d'appel de Paris lacked jurisdiction to decide on this action. Lastly, it contended that the award could not be considered as an award governed by French arbitration law, while noting that according to the NYC, the arbitration law of the place of the arbitration merely plays a subsidiary role. GNMTC argued that French law should be held applicable, especially considering that the NYC provides for the applicability of the arbitration law of the seat of the arbitration. The Cour d'appel de Paris found that the appeal was not admissible and dismissed the action. It reasoned that the arbitration had an international character since the interests of international commerce were involved. It then considered that the arbitral award was rendered following a procedure other than that of French law, which was not connected in any manner with the French legal system, and therefore it could not be considered French. As to the applicability of the NYC, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that the provisions of the Convention, which aim at facilitating the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, are not applicable where the action does not seek the enforcement of an award rendered in international arbitration and therefore no decisive argument could be drawn from the Convention to determine whether the procedural law of the country where the arbitration took place must be applied subsidiarly. It also recalled that France has used the reservation provided at Article I(3) NYC by declaring that it will only apply the NYC, on the basis of reciprocity, to the recognition and enforcement of awards made in the territory of another Contracting State. In conclusion, the Cour d'appel de Paris ruled that recourse available against an arbitral award which is not French are those which are available against a foreign arbitral award, which does not include the "appel-nullité". |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
