Case Law
Finland / 09 September 1992 / Finland, Supreme Court / Mr. Reijo Harnos and Mr. Lauri Silanterä/estate of Mr. Tauno Silanterä / S91/1064
| Country | Finland |
| Court | Finland, Supreme Court |
| Date | 09 September 1992 |
| Parties | Mr. Reijo Harnos and Mr. Lauri Silanterä/estate of Mr. Tauno Silanterä |
| Case number | S91/1064 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(c) |
| Source | www.finlex.fi |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Tauno Silanterä had purchased diamonds from Reijo Harnos pursuant to three Sales Agreements, which included non-disclosure provisions, and arbitration agreements referring disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Hamburg, West Germany. A dispute arose following the death of Tauno Silanterä, when his son, Lauri Silanterä, sought to avoid the contracts in the District Court of Helsinki, seeking interim measures and claiming that Reijo Harnos had not entered into the agreements in good faith. The District Court granted interim measures against Reijo Harnos, but the main claim was later rejected. Reijo Harnos commenced an arbitration against Lauri Silanterä claiming damages on the grounds of breach of the non-disclosure agreement and harm caused by the interim measures. An award was rendered on 22 July 1990 in West Germany in favor of Reijo Harnos, who sought enforcement in Finland. Lauri Silanterä objected to the enforcement of the award on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the tribunal was limited to the disputes arising out of the Sales Agreements entered into between Reijo Harnos and his father Tauno Silanterä. He argued that the issues regarding damages arising from the interim measures and harm to Reijo Harnos’ reputation did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clauses contained in the Sales Agreements, and that the dispute was not between the parties to those arbitration clauses. Turun ja Porin lääninhallitus (State Provincial Office of Turku and Pori) held that the award should be enforced in Finland, because the arbitral tribunal had assumed jurisdiction over the disputed issues and because Lauri Silanterä had not provided any evidence that the enforcement should be rejected pursuant to Article V NYC. Upon appeal by Lauri Silanterä, Turun hovioikeus (Turku Court of Appeals) rejected the action for enforcement under Article V(1)(c) NYC, reasoning that the claimed damages for the harm caused by the interim measures did not fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Reijo Harnos appealed. Korkein oikeus (Supreme Court of Finland) overruled the decision by reasoning that the party founding their objection on Article V(1)(c) NYC needs to prove that the award governs an issue outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, which it concluded was not the case in the dispute in question. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
