France / 15 December 1981 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Norsolor v. Société Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi / I I0I92
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
| Date | 15 December 1981 |
| Parties | Société Norsolor v. Société Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi |
| Case number | I I0I92 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris |
| Summary | A Turkish company (Pabalk) entered into an agency agreement with a French company (Ugilor, later Norsolor), which contained an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreement. A dispute arose and an award was rendered in Vienna on 26 October 1979 in favor of Pabalk. In an order issued on 4 February 1980, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Norsolor challenged the enforcement order before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, which dismissed its claim on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had, in accordance with Article 13 of the ICC Rules, applied the law that it deemed appropriate and complied with the mandate conferred upon it. In the meantime, the Vienna Commercial Court dismissed the action to set aside the award on 29 June 1981, which was subsequently appealed by Norsolor. Norsolor also appealed the enforcement order and the decision dismissing its claim before the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal). It argued that the proceeding should be suspended pending the decision of the Vienna Court of Appeal pertaining to the setting aside of the award. It then contended that the enforcement order should be overturned given that the arbitral tribunal had ruled as amiable compositeur (ex aequo et bono) and therefore did not comply with its mandate. The Cour d'appel de Paris reasoned that pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, ratified by both France and Austria, recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by the competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. It added that if the award was to be set aside, the enforcement proceeding would be without object. It thus decided to suspend the proceeding pending the decision of the Vienna Court of Appeal. It then dismissed Pabalk's request that the award be granted provisional enforcement. |
| followed by : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
