Russia / 08 April 2013 / Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) / Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v. OOO RRCi+ / А40-121292/12-29-1204
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) |
| Date | 08 April 2013 |
| Parties | Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v. OOO RRCi+ |
| Case number | А40-121292/12-29-1204 |
| Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Fujitsu Siemens Solutions GmbH (subsequently “Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH”) (“Fujitsu”) and LLC RRCi+ (“RRCi”) entered into a distribution agreement whereby RRCi became Fujitsu’s distributor in Russia and the CIS (the “Contract”). Fujitsu commenced arbitration on the basis of an arbitration clause in the Contract providing for arbitration pursuant to the arbitration rules of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce of Munich (Germany) and obtained a favourable award ordering RRCi to pay certain sums. Fujitsu sought recognition and enforcement of the award before the Moscow Arbitration Court (court of first instance). The Court granted recognition and enforcement and issued a writ of execution. RRCi appealed the ruling before the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District (court of cassation). In its appeal, RRCi alleged that due to inconsistencies between the court’s conclusions and existing factual circumstances and evidence, the court breached legal norms. In particular, RRCi alleged that (i) the arbitration agreement was not in force during the disputed period of delivery since the Contract had by then expired; (ii) the court’s conclusion regarding the extension of the Contract was unsubstantiated; (iii) the court failed to take into account that a person signing the contract and the arbitration clause lacked authority; and (iv) the norms of foreign law, not applicable in the given circumstances, were applied. The Federal Arbitrazh Court upheld the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court granting recognition and enforcement of the award. It observed that the court of first instance correctly relied on the relevant provisions of Russian law and Article V(1) NYC and concluded that there were no basis for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award. It then held that RRCi participated in the arbitration proceedings and had not objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal due to the invalidity of the arbitration clause and that RRCi did not challenge the authority of its representative who signed the Contract on its behalf in the annulment proceedings it had commenced before the Higher Regional Court of Munich. Furthermore, the court upheld the conclusion of the arbitral tribunal, on which the court of first instance relied, that, as a result of the parties’ extension of the Contract, the arbitration clause was also extended, and therefore covered all disputes related to the Contract as well as the validity of the arbitration clause itself. Lastly, the court held that RRCI’s appeal was beyond the competence of the court of cassation as it was an appeal against foreign decisions; moreover, RRCi’s assertions were based on a different assessment of the circumstances than that made by the court of first instance and thus could not serve as a basis for quashing the decision of the lower court. On this basis, the court of cassation upheld the decision of the lower court granting recognition and enforcement of the award. |
| affirmed by : | |
| affirms : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
