Russia / 14 September 2009 / Federal Arbitrazh Court for the North Caucasus District / OAO Byerezastroymaterialy (Belarus) v Individual Entrepreneur D.V. Goryelov (Russia) / No. A01-342/2009
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Federal Arbitrazh Court for the North Caucasus District |
| Date | 14 September 2009 |
| Parties | OAO Byerezastroymaterialy (Belarus) v Individual Entrepreneur D.V. Goryelov (Russia) |
| Case number | No. A01-342/2009 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(b) |
| Source | http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 2 December 2008, the International Arbitration Court at the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Arbitration Court) rendered an award ordering a Russian entrepreneur D.V. Goryelov ("Mr. Goryelov") to pay a Belarusian company, Byerezastroymaterialy, the price for goods, contractual penalties and arbitration fees. The first instance court (Arbitrazh Court of the Republic of Adygeya) rejected an application by Byerezastroymaterialy for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award holding, inter alia, that there was no evidence that Mr. Goryelov had been properly notified of the arbitral proceedings. Byerezastroymaterialy appealed the decision of the first instance court before the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the North Caucasus District, arguing that Mr. Goryelov was properly notified of the date and place of the first hearing, which was confirmed by the notice served on Mr. Goryelov, and that a notice regarding the second hearing was not served on Mr. Goryelov because his presence was not required. The Federal Arbitrazh Court rejected the cassation complaint and upheld the first instance ruling rejecting recognition and enforcement of the award. The court of cassation referred to Article V(1)(b) NYC and held that Mr. Goryelov had not been properly notified by the Arbitration Court of the time and place of the arbitral proceedings. It noted that while the arbitral tribunal held hearings before rendering the award (the second hearing was not attended by either party), Mr. Goryelov was not present at the proceedings at all. It held that the notification sent to Mr. Goryelov regarding the first hearing neither contained a note evidencing Mr. Goryelov’s receipt of the notice nor showed that the notice was not delivered to Mr. Goryelov for any reason. Thus, the Federal Arbitrazh Court concluded that Mr. Goryelov had not been duly notified of the hearings. |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
