Russia / 27 August 2009 / Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) / Erick Van Egeraat Associated Architects BV (the Netherlands) v OOO Capital Group (Russia) / No. A40-51596/09-68-437
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) |
| Date | 27 August 2009 |
| Parties | Erick Van Egeraat Associated Architects BV (the Netherlands) v OOO Capital Group (Russia) |
| Case number | No. A40-51596/09-68-437 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | III |
| Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 17 March 2008, an arbitral tribunal at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), seated in Stockholm (Sweden) rendered an award in favor of a Dutch company, Erick Van Egeraat, ordering a Russian company, Capital Group, to pay certain amounts for arrears, compensation for extra work, loss of profit and copyright infringement, and also to reimburse Erick Van Egeraat for the legal costs of the arbitral proceedings. In 2009, the arbitral award was granted recognition and enforcement by the first instance court (Moscow Arbitrazh Court). Capital Group filed a cassation complaint before the court of cassation (the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District), arguing that (i) one of the arbitrators was interested in the outcome of the case as she had participated in a conference organized by the law firm in which the opposing party’s counsel was a partner, and had spoken at the conference; (ii) the arbitral tribunal ruled on matters outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; (iii) the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal did not comply with the principle of proportionality, i.e. the proportionality between the consequences of infringement and the corresponding civil law liability. The Federal Arbitrazh Court upheld the decision of the first instance court, granting recognition and enforcement of the award. It quoted from Articles III and V(1) NYC, as well as the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. First, the court of cassation held that since the law firm where the opposing party’s counsel was a partner had been the information sponsor of the conference, and had not paid for the organization of the conference, it could thus not influence the program of the conference. It also stated that the conference did not result in any legal relations, dependency, or commercial interest between the law firm, its partner (representing Erick Van Egeraat in the arbitration) and the arbitrator. Therefore, it held that the arbitrator fully conformed to the requirements of the Arbitration Rules of the SCC and to international law. Second, the court of cassation ruled that the contract between the parties contained a broad arbitration clause, allowing the tribunal to consider a wide range of disputes, including additional works, which were closely related to the contract containing the arbitration clause. Third, it held that the issue of proportionality concerned the merits of the dispute and did not constitute a ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Finally, without discussing Capital Group’s arguments, the court of cassation concluded that certain copyright issues were linked to the performance of the contract between the parties and, therefore, fell within the ambit of the arbitration agreement. |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
