Lithuania / 08 September 2003 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) / Jusimi corporation v. UAB “Cygnus” / 3K-3-782/2003
| Country | Lithuania |
| Court | Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Date | 08 September 2003 |
| Parties | Jusimi corporation v. UAB “Cygnus” |
| Case number | 3K-3-782/2003 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) |
| Source |
https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Summary | Jusimi corporation (“Jusimi”) entered into an agreement with UAB “Cygnus” (“Cygnus”), which contained an arbitration agreement. A dispute arose and Cygnus initiated arbitration proceedings against Jusimi, obtaining a favorable award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Jusimi objected to the enforcement on the basis of Article V(1)(b) NYC, arguing that it had not received a copy of the request for arbitration. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas held in favor of Cygnus, finding that there was no violation of due process and that Jusimi had received all documents in relation to the arbitration. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) upheld the decision of the lower court, granting enforcement of the award. It first noted that Article V(1)(b) NYC requires the court to determine whether the parties had been duly notified of the arbitration proceedings and, in case it found any irregularities, to assess whether there had been a violation of due process. It held that in the present case, although Jusimi was informed of the arbitration proceeding later than it should have been, the delay did not constitute a serious violation of due process. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
