France / 18 March 2004 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Synergie v. Société SC Conect / 2001/18372, 2001/18379 & 2001/18382
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
| Date | 18 March 2004 |
| Parties | Société Synergie v. Société SC Conect |
| Case number | 2001/18372, 2001/18379 & 2001/18382 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | IV | IV(2) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris |
| Summary | Three arbitral awards were rendered in Romania on 29 May 1998 following a dispute between a French company (Synergie) and a Romanian company (Conect). In three orders issued on 14 May 2001, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the awards in France. Appealing these decisions, Synergie objected, with respect to the request for enforcement, to the lack of translation of the award by an expert recorded on the list of experts of the court contrary to Article 1499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to the fact that incomplete awards had been notified to it. It argued further that (i) the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred to it (Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure), (ii) due process was violated (Article 1502 4°) and (iii) the arbitral tribunal breached "provisions of international public policy" (Article 1502 5°). The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement orders and dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the grounds for refusing enforcement of an award listed under Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure are exhaustive and that therefore the fact that the award had not been translated by a French sworn translator (but by a Romanian expert) did not constitute a ground for refusing enforcement. It then held that Article IV NYC requires the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award to produce a translation of the said award in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent, but does not provide that the translation be made by a sworn translator recorded on the list of experts of the court. Lastly, it noted that a full translation of the award had been produced during the proceedings. The Cour d'appel de Paris then dismissed the other grounds for refusing enforcement. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
