Lithuania / 20 October 2008 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) / AB „Svenska Petroleum Exploration“, AB “Geonafta” v. Government of the Republic of Lithuania. / 3K-3-510/2008
| Country | Lithuania |
| Court | Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Date | 20 October 2008 |
| Parties | AB „Svenska Petroleum Exploration“, AB “Geonafta” v. Government of the Republic of Lithuania. |
| Case number | 3K-3-510/2008 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) |
| Source |
https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Summary | AB „Svenska Petroleum Exploration“ (“Svenska”), AB “Geonafta” (“Geonafta”) entered into an agreement with the Republic of Lithuania (“Republic of Lithuania”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and an award was rendered in favor of Svenska and Geonafta, against the Republic of Lithuania, which Svenska and Geonafta sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). The Republic of Lithuania objected to the enforcement on the grounds of Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, while at the same time challenging the validity of the contract (including the arbitration clause contained therein) in separate proceedings before the Kretinga district court. In the enforcement proceeding, the Republic of Lithuania argued that the contract breached Lithuanian public policy and that the proceedings for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award should be suspended pending the proceedings before the Kretinga district court. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas suspended the enforcement proceeding, and Svenska and Geonafta appealed to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas upheld the decision of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas, suspending the enforcement proceeding pending the proceeding before the Kretinga district court, which, it noted, would have a judicial and evidential impact on the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. Referring to Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas held that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the award without deciding whether the Republic of Lithuania could commit to arbitration. It therefore decided to await the decision of the Kretinga district court on the matter. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
