Switzerland / 23 September 2004 / Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève / X v. Y / C6165/2004
| Country | Switzerland |
| Court | Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) |
| Date | 23 September 2004 |
| Parties | X v. Y |
| Case number | C6165/2004 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) |
| Source |
Official Registry of the Cour de Justice de Genève |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 28 May 2003, X and Y, two companies engaged in the oil business, entered into a sales contract containing an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration before the Riga Commercial Arbitral Tribunal. A dispute arose and Y seized the first instance court of Kuzerme in Riga, which ruled on 13 October 2003 in Y’s favor. On appeal, the District Court of Riga reversed the decision of the lower court. Y then seized the Commercial Arbitral Tribunal of Riga, which rendered an award on 2 December 2003 in favor of Y (the “First Award”). On 7 January 2004, the District Court of Zimeliai in Riga granted enforcement of the First Award. This decision was not subject to appeal. Meanwhile, X filed a Request for Arbitration before the Riga Commercial Arbitral Tribunal, requesting annulment of the sales contract. On 13 October 2003 the Riga Commercial Arbitral Tribunal, ruling in Y’s absence, annulled the contract and directed Y to pay damages to X (the “Second Award”). On 12 January 2004, the District Court of Zimeliai in Riga refused to enforce the Second Award on the grounds that Y had not been properly served notice of the arbitration proceedings. On 24 March 2004, Y filed a request before the Tribunal de Première Instance de Genève (Geneva Tribunal of First Instance) for seizure of X’s assets in Switzerland based on the First Award and the decision of the District Court of Zimeliai of Riga of 7 January 2004. X opposed the seizure on the grounds that the Second Award had annulled the sales contract and also that the decision of 7 January 2004 had been obtained through corruption. By order of 25 March 2004, The Tribunal de Première Instance allowed the seizure, observing that Y had produced a partial translation of the First Award, and that the award had subsequently been granted enforcement. It considered that the enforcement procedure in Latvia had been valid as there had been no evidence of corruption. It found that the First Award was binding pursuant to Article 194 of the Swiss Private International Law (“SPIL”) and Article V(1)(e) NYC. X appealed the decision, arguing that the Tribunal de Première Instance had based its decision on the 7 January 2004 decision of the Latvian District Court, which had erred manifestly on the facts. The Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) upheld the decision of the lower court. It considered that even though the First Award was rendered in a country which was not party to the NYC, pursuant to Article 194 of the SPIL its validity was governed by the NYC It noted that pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, a foreign arbitral award did not need to be enforceable in its country of origin but only needed to have become binding upon the parties. It found that the award had become binding when it became res judicata and was not subject to an ordinary appeal. It added that enforcement of an award may be denied only if the party opposing enforcement could prove that one of the grounds in Article V(1) NYC had been met. The Cour de Justice de Genève ruled that X had not raised any of the grounds in Article V(1) NYC against the enforcement of the First Award, which had become binding notwithstanding the enforcement decision by the District Tribunal of Zimeliai of Riga, dated 7 January 2004. The Cour de Justice de Genève added that the Second Award, inasmuch as Y had not been served notice of the proceedings, did not conform to the requirements of the NYC and did not, therefore, its non-enforcement was not in contradiction to the enforcement of the First Award. |
| affirmed by : |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
