Germany / 14 December 2006 / Germany, Oberlandesgericht Celle / 8 Sch 14/05
| Country | Germany |
| Court | Germany, Oberlandesgericht Celle |
| Date | 14 December 2006 |
| Case number | 8 Sch 14/05 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VII | V | IV | II | V(1)(b) | VII(1) | V(1)(a) | IV(2) | V(1)(d) | IV(1)(a) | II(2) | II(1) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Oberlandesgericht Celle |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | A ship-owner and a charterer negotiated two charter-parties but signed only one. The charter-parties referred to the arbitration clause contained in the GENCON 1994 charter-party template, which provided for arbitration in London. Subsequently, the ship-owner initiated arbitration, claiming a breach of the unsigned charter-party, and obtained a favorable award. The ship-owner applied for enforcement before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Celle, which was opposed by the charterer, who also sought annulment of the award by the Oberlandesgericht on the grounds that (i) the charter-party was not enforceable, (ii) that the parties had not concluded a valid arbitration agreement and therefore the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction, (iii) that the arbitration had not been conducted in accordance with English law, which, it argued, permitted an arbitrator to assume jurisdiction only when the existence of an arbitration agreement was undisputed between the parties - which it was not - and that the arbitrator’s decision nevertheless to assume jurisdiction violated German public policy, and (iv) that it had not received a request to nominate an arbitrator and had not yet received a copy of the award. The ship-owner replied saying that (i) the arbitrator had held that the unsigned charter-party, and thus the arbitration agreement, had been validly concluded, (ii) that the charterer had not raised any concerns as to the existence of the arbitration agreement during the arbitral proceedings and could not do so now, and (iii) that the arbitration proceedings did not violate any fundamental legal principles of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Oberlandesgericht declared the award enforceable and denied the request for annulment, reasoning that the award had been rendered in England and could therefore only be annulled in England. The Oberlandesgericht found that the ship-owner had fulfilled the requirements for enforcement under Article III NYC as it had supplied a certified copy of the award as per Article IV(1)(a) NYC and a certified translation of the same as per Article IV(2) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht found that pursuant to the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC, the less stringent requirements of German law (Section 1064 (1) and (3) of the German Civil Procedure Code) were applicable, rather than those in Article IV NYC, and German law did not require submission of the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy of the same. It further noted that according to Articles II(1), II(2) and V(1)(a) NYC a written arbitration agreement was required, but based on the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC the less stringent requirements of Section 1031 of the German Civil Procedure Code would apply, whereby “a written document signed by both parties was not mandatorily necessary”. The Oberlandesgericht concluded that the arbitration agreement contained in the annex of the unsigned charter-party met the formal requirements of a valid arbitration agreement. The Oberlandesgericht said that the factual or legal findings of the arbitrator regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement were not binding on it and that enforcement courts were required to make an independent assessment of whether the requirements of Articles II and V NYC had been met. The Oberlandesgericht found that Article V(1)(d) NYC only concerned defenses regarding the “composition of the arbitral authority” or the “arbitral procedure”, and that the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement was a preliminary question that fell under Article V(1)(a) NYC. It reasoned that there was therefore no basis for refusing enforcement under Article V(1)(d) based on the charterer’s argument that under English law arbitrators could only become active if the existence of an arbitration agreement was undisputed between the parties. The Oberlandesgericht found that the charterer’s allegation that they had not received a request to nominate the arbitrator was contradicted by the evidence and therefore Article V(1)(b) NYC was not applicable. It also held that the charterer had not shown that recognition and enforcement of the award would contradict German public policy and that the fact that it had not yet received a copy of the arbitral award did not constitute a violation of German public policy as it was well recognized that an arbitral award could be transmitted during proceedings for its annulment or enforcement. |
| see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
