Germany / 21 May 2007 / Germany, Bundesgerichtshof / III ZB 14/07
| Country | Germany |
| Court | Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) |
| Date | 21 May 2007 |
| Case number | III ZB 14/07 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(e) | V(1)(d) |
| Source | DIS |
| Summary | The Parties concluded a supply contract in 2000 containing a clause providing for the resolution of disputes at the International Arbitration Court (IAC) at the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Minsk. The Claimant initiated arbitration and obtained favorable award in 2005, which was signed by the President of the tribunal and the arbitrator appointed by the Claimant. The signature of the third arbitrator was replaced by a statement of the President that he was on vacation. The Claimant sought enforcement in Germany, where the Defendant had a subsidiary company. In the meantime, the Supreme Commercial Court in Belarus annulled the award, finding that the tribunal had violated the IAC rules, and that the third arbitrator did not sign the award because he disagreed with the decision, and the President should have requested appointment of a substitute arbitrator. Enforcement was denied by the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Dresden on 31 January 2007 pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, because the award had been set aside in Belarus. The Claimant appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court). The Bundesgerichtshof dismissed the appeal and denied enforcement, finding that the Oberlandesgericht had not violated due process by failing to examine fully the Claimant's arguments. It reasoned that Article V(1)(e) NYC allows the enforcement court to refuse recognition when the award has been set aside by the court in the country of rendition. Furthermore, the Oberlandesgericht ascertained independently that the award had been rightly annulled because it was rendered by a truncated tribunal in violation of the applicable IAC rules. The Bundesgerichtshof further held that recognition should be also be refused under Article V(1)(d) NYC for irregularity of the arbitral procedure. |
| affirms : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
