France / 15 October 2009 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société OAO NPO Saturn v. Société Unimpex Entreprises Ltd / 07/17049
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
| Date | 15 October 2009 |
| Parties | Société OAO NPO Saturn v. Société Unimpex Entreprises Ltd |
| Case number | 07/17049 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris |
| Summary | On 5 February 1996, UNIMPEX Entreprises LTD sold a plane and engines to a Russian company (Rybinske Motory (OAO NPO SATURN being its successor)). An amendment was subsequently signed providing for the transfer of shares of the Russian company. Following issues relating to the share transfer, UNIMPEX seized the arbitral tribunal pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the sales agreement. The arbitrators ruled in favor of UNIMPEX. In an order issued on 4 July 2007, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, OAO NPO SATURN argued that the arbitral tribunal ruled in the absence of an arbitration agreement and that the award was contrary to international public policy (Articles 1502 1° and 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure). It claimed that the subject matter of the dispute (concerning the performance of the amendment which pertains to the transfer of shares) was not capable of settlement by arbitration under Russian law and that therefore the enforcement of the award was contrary to Article V(2)(a) NYC. It also argued that recognition and enforcement of the award would violate international public policy since the amendment was null and void under Russian law. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement of the award. It held that Article V(2) NYC refers to the law of the "country where recognition and enforcement is sought", in the case at hand, French law. Given that under French law penalties requested in the transfer of shares of a joint-stock company are arbitrable, the Cour d'appel de Paris ruled that the enforcement of the award was not contrary to Article V(2) NYC. It added that international public policy precludes a party from relying on the restrictive provisions of its domestic law to avoid the consequences of an arbitration to which it consented. Lastly, it rejected the argument based on an alleged violation of international public policy. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
