France / 25 February 1986 / France, Cour de cassation / Société C.O.N.F.E.X. v. Etablissements Dahan and M. Bellue / 84-12.138
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) |
| Date | 25 February 1986 |
| Parties | Société C.O.N.F.E.X. v. Etablissements Dahan and M. Bellue |
| Case number | 84-12.138 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(1) | II(2) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation |
| Summary | A sales agreement was concluded on 10 March 1980, between a French company (DAHAN) and a Romanian company (CONFEX), containing an arbitration agreement. By exchange of telexes on 5 and 6 August 1982, the same parties concluded a second sales agreement. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the conformity of the goods delivered in accordance with the second sales agreement. DAHAN sued CONFEX before the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille (Commercial Court of Marseille), which objected to jurisdiction by invoking the arbitration agreement contained in the 10 March 1980 sales agreement. On 18 January 1984, the Cour d'Aix-en Provence (Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal) affirmed the decision of the Tribunal de commerce de Marseille which had dismissed CONFEX's objection to jurisdiction and assumed jurisdiction, by ruling that the second sales agreement, which was the subject of the dispute, did not contain any commitment by DAHAN to settle any dispute arising out of the said agreement through arbitration. Appealing this decision, CONFLEX argued that French Courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. It contended that in international arbitration, the arbitration agreement is not subject to any formal requirement and that the intention of the parties may be established by any means. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) upheld the decision of the Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence and dismissed the action. It reasoned that CONFEX, which had invoked the NYC requiring an agreement in writing before the lower courts, could not contradict itself by arguing now that the arbitration agreement is not subject to any formal requirement in international arbitration. It then concluded that, in the case at hand, the parties have not consented to settle disputes arising out of the second sales agreement through arbitration. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
