Russia / 24 January 2012 / Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) / Mabofi Holdings Limited v RosGas A.G. / A40-65888/11-8/553
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) |
| Date | 24 January 2012 |
| Parties | Mabofi Holdings Limited v RosGas A.G. |
| Case number | A40-65888/11-8/553 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(a) |
| Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 19 May 2011, an arbitral tribunal seated in Moscow, Russia, under the arbitration rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation issued an award confirming its jurisdiction over a dispute between RosGas A.G. (“RosGas”) and Mabofi Holdings Limited (“Mabofi”) concerning the validity of a contract for the sale of shares in Hungarian company Emfesz (the “Contract”). In concurrent proceedings, Mabofi obtained a judgment from a Hungarian court declaring that the Contract and the arbitration clause contained therein never came into existence since the Mabofi representative who signed the Contract lacked the necessary authority under the power of attorney granted to him. Mabofi applied to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court (court of first instance) to have the arbitral tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction annulled. Relying on Article V(1)(a) NYC, the court of first instance rejected the application. It held that Russian law, being the law of the country where the award was rendered, applied to issues concerning the validity of the arbitration clause and the Hungarian judgment was therefore irrelevant. In a complaint filed with the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District (court of cassation), Mabofi alleged that the court of first instance should have suspended the proceedings until the Hungarian court had rendered its decision. Failing such suspension, Mabofi argued that the court violated its right to judicial protection and, in so doing, called into question the performance by the Russian Federation of its international obligations. The Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District overturned the first instance decision and remanded the case to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court. It held that by disregarding the Hungarian judgment, which declared the arbitration agreement null, the court of first instance violated the principle of comity, as well as the bilateral treaty providing for mutual recognition of judgments in force between Hungary and the Russian Federation. The court of cassation further held that the court of first instance incorrectly applied Article V(1)(a) NYC pursuant to which the validity of an arbitration agreement is determined according to the law of the country where the award is rendered only if the parties have not otherwise agreed on the agreement’s applicable law. Thus, contrary to the decision of the court of first instance, Russian law did not apply to the arbitration agreement given that the parties had agreed that it should be governed by Hungarian law. |
| see also : |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
