France / 29 June 2007 / France, Cour de cassation / Société PT Putrabali Adyamulia v. Société Rena Holding et Société Moguntia Est Epices / 05-18.053
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) |
| Date | 29 June 2007 |
| Parties | Société PT Putrabali Adyamulia v. Société Rena Holding et Société Moguntia Est Epices |
| Case number | 05-18.053 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VII | VII(1) |
| Source |
Bulletin 2007, I, N° 250, Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation |
| Summary | An Indonesian company (Putrabali) sold a cargo of white pepper to a French company (Est Epices, which later became Rena Holding). The contract provided for arbitration according to the Rules of Arbitration and Appeal of the International General Produce Association (IGPA). A dispute arose when the cargo was lost in a shipwreck. The Indonesian company commenced arbitration in London in accordance with the IGPA Rules. In an award dated 10 April 2001, the arbitral tribunal held that Rena Holding's refusal to pay was "well-founded". Putrabali challenged the award on a point of law before the High Court on the basis of the Arbitration Act 1996 for England and Wales, which partially set aside the award and held that the Rena Holding's failure to pay for the cargo amounted to a breach of contract. In a second award dated 21 August 2003, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of Putrabali and ordered Rena Holding to pay the contract price. An enforcement order was issued by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowing recognition and enforcement of the 2001 award in France. Putrabali challenged the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) of 31 March 2005 which dismissed the appeal against the enforcement order, on the grounds that, inter alia, the setting aside of an arbitral award in a foreign country does not prevent the interested party from seeking enforcement of the award in France. Further, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that the enforcement of the 2001 award would not be contrary to international public policy. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris. It reasoned that an international arbitral award, which is not anchored in any national legal order, is a decision of international justice whose validity must be ascertained with regard to the rules applicable in the country where its recognition and enforcement are sought. Pursuant to Article VII NYC, it held that Rena Holding was allowed to seek enforcement in France of the 2001 award rendered in London in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the IGPA rules and could avail itself of the French rules on international arbitration, which do not list the setting aside of an award in the country of origin as a ground for refusing the recognition and enforcement of that award. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
