![China / 22 April 2003 / China, 辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院 (Liaoning, Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court) / Ukraine Kryukovskiy Car Building Works v. Shenyang Changcheng Economic and Trade Company / [2002] 沈民字第16号 / [2002] ShenMinZi No. 16](./images/case-law.png)
China / 22 April 2003 / China, 辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院 (Liaoning, Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court) / Ukraine Kryukovskiy Car Building Works v. Shenyang Changcheng Economic and Trade Company / [2002] 沈民字第16号 / [2002] ShenMinZi No. 16
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院 (Liaoning, Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court) |
| Date | 22 April 2003 |
| Parties | Ukraine Kryukovskiy Car Building Works v. Shenyang Changcheng Economic and Trade Company |
| Case number | [2002] 沈民字第16号 / [2002] ShenMinZi No. 16 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | IV | V | V(1)(b) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 25 November 1999, Ukraine Kryukovskiy Car Building Works (“Ukraine Kryukovskiy”) entered into an agreement with Shenyang Changcheng Economic and Trade Company (“Shenyang Changcheng”) under which disputes should be referred to arbitration under the auspices of the International Commercial Arbitration Court of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“UCCI”). A dispute arose between the parties and Ukraine Kryukovskiy referred the dispute to arbitration under the UCCI. On 29 March 1999, an award was rendered in favour of Ukraine Kryukovskiy, who then applied on 17 June 2002 for recognition and enforcement of the award before the Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court (沈阳中级法院). Shenyang Changcheng only raised objections to the application insofar as the merits underlying the parties’ dispute, namely that its failure to provide Ukraine Kryukovskiy consideration resulted from Ukraine Kryukovskiy’s own delayed delivery of the equipment under the parties’ agreement, that Ukraine Kryukovskiy’s default caused it substantial economic losses and that it was Ukraine Kryukovskiy that initially defaulted. The Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court opined that the award should be recognised and enforced. In particular, the court found that Ukraine Kryukovskiy’s application complied with the requirements set out in Article IV since Ukraine Kryukovskiy had submitted a notarised and certified copy of the arbitral award and the underlying agreement and there were no grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement under Articles V(1) or V(2) NYC, including Article V(1)(b) NYC, since Shenyang Changcheng filed defences after notice of the arbitration hearing had been sent to the parties. Furthermore, the court held that the arbitral award was consistent with China’s two reservations to the NYC and that the application for recognition and enforcement had been filed within the six-month time limit requirement under Chinese law. |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
