France / 23 March 1994 / France, Cour de cassation / Société Hilmarton Ltd v. Société Omnium de traitement et de valorisation (OTV) / 92-15.137
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) |
| Date | 23 March 1994 |
| Parties | Société Hilmarton Ltd v. Société Omnium de traitement et de valorisation (OTV) |
| Case number | 92-15.137 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(1) |
| Source |
Bulletin 1994 I N° 104 p. 79, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation |
| Summary | A French company (Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation - OTV) entrusted an English company (Hilmarton) with the task of providing advise and coordination for a bid to obtain and perform a contract for works in Algeria. Hilmarton relied on the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreement in order to obtain payment of the remaining balance of its fees. The award rendered in Geneva on 19 August 1988 dismissed this claim. The award was declared enforceable in France even though it had been set aside in Switzerland. Hilmarton challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) which upheld the enforcement order. It contended that, pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, the recognition and enforcement should have been refused since it has been set aside in Switzerland. It argued further that the Cour d'appel de Paris also violated Articles 1498 and 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure by granting effect to an award which had no legal existence since it had been set aside. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris and dismissed the action. Pursuant to Article VII NYC, it found that the Cour d'appel de Paris rightly held that OTV could avail itself of French rules pertaining to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in international arbitration and notably Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not include the same ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement of awards as set forth in Article V(1)(e) NYC. The Cour de cassation added that the award rendered in Switzerland was an international award which was not integrated into the legal order of that State and therefore continues to exist notwithstanding the notion that it had been set aside and its recognition in France was not contrary to international public policy. |
| affirms : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
