France / 23 October 1997 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation (I.A.I.G.C.) v. Société Banque arabe et internationale d'investissement (B.A.I.I.) / 96/80232
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
| Date | 23 October 1997 |
| Parties | Société Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation (I.A.I.G.C.) v. Société Banque arabe et internationale d'investissement (B.A.I.I.) |
| Case number | 96/80232 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | III | VI | VII |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris |
| Summary | On 17 November 1984, the International and Arab Investment Bank (BAII) granted a loan to the Baghdad Sewerage Board (BSB), an Iraqi public entity. It subsequently subscribed an insurance agreement with the Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee International Corporation (IAIGC), garanteeing part of the loss if may suffer in case of a default of payment by BSB. When BSB defaulted, IAIGC paid at first but later refused when BAII did not comply with the Arab nationality requirement. BAII then filed a Request for arbitration and an award was rendered in Jordan in its favor. In an order issued on 4 July 1995, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, IAIGC argued that (i) there was no award under the meaning of Article 1498 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (ii) due process had been violated (article 1502 4°), (iii) the arbitral tribunal ruled without an arbitration agreement (Article 1502 1°) and without complying with the mandate conferred upon it (Article 1502 3°), and (iv) the recognition and enforcement of the award was contrary to international public policy (Article 1502 5°). In addition, IAIGC sought a stay of the proceedings pending the action to set aside the award which was initiated before Jordan Courts in accordance with Article VI NYC. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the NYC applied (as it had been ratified by Koweit, Jordan and France) and that according to Article III and VII NYC, the court in charge of the enforcement of the award may not refuse enforcement when its domestic law allows it. It then held that the requirements for enforcement of an award under French law were satisfied in the case at hand and that the fact that the award had not been approved by Jordan Courts (as provided by Jordan law) had no bearing on the enforcement procedure. It then dismissed IAIGC's claims based on Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As to the request for stay of the proceedings, the Cour d'appel de Paris reasoned that the existence of an action to set aside the award in the country where the award was rendered is not listed as a ground to refuse enforcement of an award in France under Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that it may not refuse enforcement for any ground other than those listed under the said provision. It then ruled that it would not be appropriate to stay proceedings. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
