Germany / 15 March 2006 / Oberlandesgericht München / 34 Sch 06/05
| Country | Germany |
| Court | Germany, Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court of Munich) |
| Date | 15 March 2006 |
| Case number | 34 Sch 06/05 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VII | V | IV | VII(1) | V(1)(d) | IV(1) |
| Source | DIS |
| Summary | The parties concluded a manufacturing contract containing a clause referring disputes at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC). A dispute arose when the supplier allegedly failed to pay under several invoices. The Claimant initiated arbitration and obtained a favorable award, and subsequently sought enforcement in Germany. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) München granted enforcement and rejected the Defendant's objection that the composition of the tribunal was not in accordance with the Parties' agreement, as the tribunal had been composed of one arbitrator rather than two or more arbitrators as agreed in the arbitration clause. The Court held that the Defendant was aware of this composition but did not object to it during the arbitration proceedings, and was therefore estopped from raising this objection during enforcement proceedings. The Claimant had fulfilled the formal requirements for enforcement under Article IV(1)(a) by supplying the original arbitral award together with a certified copy of its German translation. In virtue of the more-favorable-right provision of Article VII(1) NYC, it was not necessary to supply the arbitration agreement as required by Article IV(1)(b) NYC, because domestic German law does not require it. |
| see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
