France / 06 July 2005 / France, Cour de cassation / M. Golshani v. Gouvernement de la République islamique d’Iran / 01-15.912
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) |
| Date | 06 July 2005 |
| Parties | M. Golshani v. Gouvernement de la République islamique d’Iran |
| Case number | 01-15.912 |
| Source |
Bulletin 2005 I N° 302 p. 252, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation |
| Summary | An individual seized the Iran-US Claims Tribunal on 19 January 1982 to obtain compensation for the alleged expropriation of his shares in various companies. An award was rendered on 2 March 1993 which dismissed his claims. In an order issued on 1 February 1999, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. The individual challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) which had upheld the enforceability of the award in France, on the grounds that the Cour d'appel de Paris distorted his submissions by stating that he had not invoked the NYC to challenge the enforcement order, whereas he had argued that since the High Court of London had refused to apply the NYC for the enforcement of an award rendered by the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the enforcement order should be overturned pursuant to the NYC. He also claimed that the decision was contrary to Article 1502 1° of the Code of Civil Procedure given that the arbitral tribunal ruled in the absence of an arbitration agreement since the Treaty instituting the Iran-US Claims Tribunal could not be considered as an arbitration agreement to which a private party may subscribe. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris but did not refer to the NYC. It noted that the individual initiated the arbitration before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal and participated to the proceedings for over nine years without raising any objection. It thus held that the individual was estopped from claiming that the Iran-US Claims Tribunal had ruled without an arbitration agreement or on the basis of an agreement which was null and void. |
| affirms : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
