France / 09 October 1984 / France, Cour de cassation / Société Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi c. Société Norsolor / 83-11.355
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) |
| Date | 09 October 1984 |
| Parties | Société Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi c. Société Norsolor |
| Case number | 83-11.355 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(1) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation |
| Summary | A Turkish company (Pabalk) entered into a commercial representation 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. Pursuant to Article 1028 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Norsolor challenged the enforcement order before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, which dismissed its claim. In the meantime, the Vienna Court of Appeal partially set aside the award on 29 January 1982, on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had breached Article 13 of the ICC Rules by failing to establish which national law was applicable and merely referring to the lex mercatoria . Norsolor then appealed the enforcement order and the decision dismissing its claim before the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal), which, in a decision dated 19 November 1982, overturned the decision and partially retracted the enforcement order pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, given that certain sections of the operative part of the award had been set aside by the Vienna Court of Appeal. Appealing this decision, Pabalk argued that the Cour d'appel de Paris violated Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Article VII NYC given that, under French law, the court in charge of the enforcement of an arbitral award may not control the reasons stated in the arbitral award and that the reference made by the arbital tribunal to the lex mercatoria does not violate international public policy. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) overturned the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris. It reasoned that according to Article VII NYC, the provisions of the NYC do not deprive any interested party of any right it may have to avail itself of an arbitral award in a manner and to the extent allowed by the law where such award is sought to be relied upon. It added that Courts may not refuse enforcement of an arbitral award where their domestic legislation so permits and, by virtue of Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Courts should, even sua sponte, proceed to this verification. It then held that the Cour d'appel de Paris should have verified whether French law allowed Pabalk to avail itself of the award. |
| reverses : | |
| see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
