Lithuania / 02 May 2012 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) / UAB „Tarptautinės statybos korporacija“ v. ALSTOM Power Sweden Aktienbolag (AB). / 3K-3-199/2012
| Country | Lithuania |
| Court | Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Date | 02 May 2012 |
| Parties | UAB „Tarptautinės statybos korporacija“ v. ALSTOM Power Sweden Aktienbolag (AB). |
| Case number | 3K-3-199/2012 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(3) |
| Source |
https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania) |
| Summary | UAB „Tarptautinės statybos korporacija“(“Statybos korporacija”) entered in a construction contract with ALSTOM Power Sweden Aktienbolag (AB) (“Alstom”), which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Stockholm, Sweden. Both parties also entered into other agreements concerning related works, which did not provide for arbitration. A dispute arose and Statybos korporacija brought a claim against Alstom before the Vilnius district court. Alstom objected to the jurisdiction of the local court, arguing that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement contained in the construction contract. The Vilnius district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and referred the parties to arbitration. Statybos korporacija appealed, arguing that the dispute fell outside the scope of the construction contract and that the Lithuanian courts therefore had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Alstom objected to the jurisdiction of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania) on the basis of Article II(3) NYC, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration pursuant to arbitration clause contained in the construction contract. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas overturned the decision of the Vilnius district court, finding that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration agreement. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) held that it was not possible to rule on whether the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement according to the NYC, and remanded the case to the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas for reexamination. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas stated that Article II(3) NYC can only be applied to disputes arising from an agreement containing an arbitration clause and that the NYC would not apply where the applicant's claim is based on a contract that does not contain an arbitration agreement. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas held that in the present case, it was not clear whether the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
