Russia / 27 May 2013 / Russia, Высший Арбитражный Суд Российской Федерации (Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation) / Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v. OOO RRCi+ / BAC-5876/13
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Высший Арбитражный Суд Российской Федерации (Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation) |
| Date | 27 May 2013 |
| Parties | Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v. OOO RRCi+ |
| Case number | BAC-5876/13 |
| Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH” (“Fujitsu”) sought recognition and enforcement before the Moscow Arbitration Court (court of first instance) of an arbitral award rendered by an arbitral tribunal at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry for Munich and Upper Bavaria (Germany) ordering LLC RRCi+ (“RRCi”) to pay certain sums. The court granted recognition and enforcement and issued a writ of execution. This decision was appealed by RRCi before the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District (court of cassation). After the court of cassation rejected the appeal, RRCi appealed the decisions of the lower courts before the Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation alleging that the courts incorrectly applied the law. RRCI held that the lower courts had violated the law in that they: (i) enforced an award that had not entered into force; (ii) applied norms of foreign law without determining their meaning; (iii) enforced an award affecting the rights of a person who had not been joined as a party in the arbitration proceedings; (iv) reached a conclusion regarding the extension of the arbitration clause in the absence of a written agreement; (v) failed to consider that the award concerned issues falling beyond the powers of the arbitral tribunal given restrictions of time and place contained in the Contract and arbitration clause; and (vi) failed to consider that a party to the arbitration clause lacked capacity. The Highest Arbitrazh Court rejected RRCi’s request to refer the case to the Presidium of the Highest Arbitrazh Court and upheld the decisions of the lower courts. It relied on the following findings of the court of first instance: (i) by way of extension of the Contract, the arbitration clause was also extended; (ii) RRCi participated in the arbitration proceedings and had not objected to the lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal due to the invalidity of the arbitration agreement; and (iii) RRCi did not challenge the authority of its representative that signed the Contract on its behalf in the annulment proceedings before the Supreme Court of Munich. It also held that the lower courts correctly referred to the relevant provisions of Russian law and Article V(1) NYC and rightly determined that there were no grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award as none were presented by the appellant. On this basis, it concluded that no basis existed for allowing the Presidium of the Highest Arbitrazh Court to re-examine the decisions of the lower courts. |
| affirms : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
