Lithuania / 13 May 2011 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania) / Shipping Services A/S v. RAB Sevnaučflot, Fishery Group LLC / 2-1545/2011
| Country | Lithuania |
| Court | Lithuania, Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania) |
| Date | 13 May 2011 |
| Parties | Shipping Services A/S v. RAB Sevnaučflot, Fishery Group LLC |
| Case number | 2-1545/2011 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) |
| Source |
https://www.apeliacinis.lt (website of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania) |
| Summary | Shipping Services A/S (“Shipping Services”) entered into a contract with RAB Sevnaučflot, Fishery Group LLC (“Fishery Group”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Shipping Services brought a lawsuit against Fishery Group in the Klaipėda district court, to which Fishery Group objected, arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction due to the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract. In the course of the proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against both parties. The Klaipėda district court dismissed Fishery Group’s objections and referred the parties to arbitration. Fishery Group appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the dispute was non-arbitrable under Lithuanian law. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania) overruled the lower court’s decision, holding that the dispute was non-arbitrable pursuant to Article V(2)(a) NYC. It noted that the legal status of the parties had changed since the conclusion of the contract, as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against them. It further noted that the NYC does not specify whether disputes between companies which are undergoing bankruptcy proceedings are to be resolved through arbitration and that under the NYC, recognition and enforcement may be refused if the subject matter is non-arbitrable under national law. Thus, on the basis of Articles 11 and 40 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration of 2 April 1996, the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas concluded that disputes relating to insolvent companies, as in the present case, were non-arbitrable. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
