Lithuania / 25 November 2003 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) / RAB „Szolmar“ v. UAB „Ukmedė“. / 3K-7-999/2003
| Country | Lithuania |
| Court | Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Date | 25 November 2003 |
| Parties | RAB „Szolmar“ v. UAB „Ukmedė“. |
| Case number | 3K-7-999/2003 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(2) |
| Source |
https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Summary | RAB „Szolmar“ (“Szolmar”) entered into a contract with UAB „Ukmedė“ (“Ukmedė”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Szolmar initiated arbitration proceedings against Ukmedė, obtaining a favorable award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Ukmedė objected to the enforcement on the basis of Article II(2) NYC, arguing that the arbitration agreement was not valid, and that the parties had not agreed to resolve the dispute through arbitration, as Ukmedė had not signed the contract. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas found in favor of Ukmedė and refused enforcement of the award. Szolmar appealed before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas overruled the decision of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas, granting enforcement of the award, finding that there existed a valid arbitration agreement between the parties under Article II(2) NYC. It held that it was not necessary for an arbitration agreement to be signed or stamped in order to be valid, finding that a court may accept additional written evidence to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement. It concluded that in the present case, there was sufficient evidence to show that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
