France / 22 March 2001 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie v. Compagnie Noga d'importation et d'exportation / 2000/10183
Country | France |
Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
Date | 22 March 2001 |
Parties | Gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie v. Compagnie Noga d'importation et d'exportation |
Case number | 2000/10183 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | III | V |
Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris |
Summary | A Swiss company (Noga) entered into two loan agreements with the Government of the Russian Federation on 12 April 1991 and 29 January 1992 containing an arbitration agreement. An arbitral award was rendered in Stockholm on 15 May 1997 in favor of Noga. A second award was subsequently rendered on 15 May 1997. The Russian Federation commenced proceedings to set aside the awards which were dismissed by the First Instance Court of Stockholm on 17 June 1998, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Svea on 24 March 1999. Noga sought enforcement of the awards and of the decisions of Swedish Courts in France. The President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Paris First Instance Court) allowed enforcement of these awards in France and of the decisions on 15 March 2000 in accordance with the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 and the NYC. Appealing this decision, the Russian Federation argued, inter alia, that the Tribunal of Grande Instance de Paris exceeded its powers since it could not grant enforcement in the context of adversary proceedings. It also claimed that, in reviewing the awards with regard to the conditions set forth in Article V NYC, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris breached Article III NYC, which prohibits imposing more onerous conditions on the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than those imposed for domestic awards, since the procedure would result in assessing twice the international regularity of the awards. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) which found that the "appel-nullité" was inadmissible, confirmed the enforcement orders and dismissed the appeal. As to the alleged breach of Article III NYC, it reasoned that this provision allows the Contracting States to define their own rules regarding the enforcement procedure, subject to not imposing substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than those which are imposed for domestic arbitral awards. It then held that even though the enforcement of awards is usually granted through ex parte proceedings (which is not mandatory under French law but results from the courts' practice and consistent jurisprudence), the fact that enforcement was granted in the context of adversary proceedings, which is always a possibility, is not contrary to Article III NYC in the absence of any discrimination. |
follows : |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |