Lithuania / 04 November 2011 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) / K.M. v. UAB „A. Sabonio Žalgirio krepšinio centras“ / 3K-3-411/2011
| Country | Lithuania |
| Court | Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Date | 04 November 2011 |
| Parties | K.M. v. UAB „A. Sabonio Žalgirio krepšinio centras“ |
| Case number | 3K-3-411/2011 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) |
| Source |
https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Summary | K.M., a basketball player, entered into a contract with UAB „A. Sabonio Žalgirio krepšinio centras“ (“Sabonio centras”), a basketball club, which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose concerning termination of the contract and K.M. initiated arbitration proceedings against Sabonio centras, obtaining a favorable award, which it then sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Sabonio centras objected to the request based on Article V(2)(b) NYC, arguing that the award was contrary to public policy. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas dismissed the objection and granted recognition and enforcement of the award. Sabonio centras appealed to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas affirmed the decision of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas, holding that the award did not violate Article V(2)(b) NYC. It noted that the concept of “public policy” should not be interpreted to mean “national public policy” as such an interpretation would contradict the purpose of the NYC. It further noted that the concept of “public policy” had to be interpreted in an international context otherwise the concept of public policy in international commercial arbitration would depend on the jurisdiction before which recognition and enforcement of the award is sought. Lastly, it found that parties who opted for arbitration have reasonable expectations of the factors that may affect the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award pursuant to the NYC. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
