France / 04 July 1996 / France, Cour d'appel de Versailles / Société Fieldworks-Inc v. Société Erim, Société Logic Instrument and Société Add-on Computer Distribution (A.C.D.) / 3603/96, 3703/96, 3998/96
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles) |
| Date | 04 July 1996 |
| Parties | Société Fieldworks-Inc v. Société Erim, Société Logic Instrument and Société Add-on Computer Distribution (A.C.D.) |
| Case number | 3603/96, 3703/96, 3998/96 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(3) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Versailles |
| Summary | On 9 May 1994, A US company (Fieldworks) entered into a distribution agreement with a French company (Logic Instrument), containing an arbitration agreement. Following the termination of the agreement by Fieldworks, the French company initiated summary proceedings before the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise (Commercial Court of Pontoise) on 29 February 1996. On 15 March 1996, Fieldworks commenced arbitration before the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the distribution agreement. In an order issued on 28 March 1996, the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise found that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, rejected various claims of the French company (inter alia, a request for expertise) and granted provisional measures against Fieldworks and third parties. Appealing this decision, Fieldworks argued, inter alia, that the juge des référés (summary proceedings judge) of the Tribunal de commerce de Paris should have declined jurisdiction in accordance with Article II NYC and Article 1458 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal) upheld the order as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise. It held that even though an arbitration agreement requires in principle that domestic courts decline jurisdiction and refer the parties to arbitration, it does not prevent one of the parties from obtaining provisional measures on an urgent basis, which does not require a ruling on the merits of the dispute (falling under the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal), where it is justified by specific and exceptional circumstances. It then held that, in the case at hand, provisional measures were not justified and thus overturned the order issued by the Tribunal de Commerce de Pontoise in this respect. As to Logic Instrument's request for expertise, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled that, given that the dispute is being settled through arbitration, it is for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether to order an expertise. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
