Germany / 14 March 2006 / Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) / 6 Sch 11/05
| Country | Germany |
| Court | Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) |
| Date | 14 March 2006 |
| Case number | 6 Sch 11/05 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(2) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The parties concluded a contract for cabling works in Mozambique which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A dispute arose and the Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings in Geneva. The Respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the tribunal rendered a partial award confirming its jurisdiction and allocating the costs incurred up to that point in the proceedings. Meanwhile, the Respondent initiated proceedings against the Claimant in the German state courts, which were dismissed as being inadmissible. The Claimant sought enforcement of the decision on costs before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Hamburg. The Respondent opposed enforcement arguing that the arbitral tribunal had lacked jurisdiction due to the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. It further argued that because the arbitral tribunal had lacked jurisdiction, the Oberlandesgericht did not have jurisdiction to decide on the enforceability of the partial award. The Respondent also argued that the partial award was not enforceable because it had not conclusively decided the entire dispute, or a distinct part thereof. Finally, it argued that the partial award improperly contained a decision on costs, which could have legally binding effect only for the final award and which would not make the partial award enforceable. The Oberlandesgericht granted enforcement of the partial award, holding that none of the grounds for refusal of enforcement under Article V NYC were applicable. It held that the arbitration clause was valid under Article II(2) NYC, and that the Respondent’s objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement were unfounded, as held by the German courts in the court proceedings previously initiated by the Respondent. The Oberlandesgericht further concluded that the partial award was enforceable since the arbitrator had arrived at a final decision on the issue of jurisdiction and on the allocation of costs for that phase of the proceedings. |
| affirmed by : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
