Germany / 17 December 2008 / Germany, Oberlandesgericht München / 34 Sch 18/08
| Country | Germany |
| Court | Germany, Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court of Munich) |
| Date | 17 December 2008 |
| Case number | 34 Sch 18/08 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VII | VII(1) |
| Source | DIS |
| Summary | In December 2005, the Claimant concluded a supply contract with Company X by telefax exchange, which included a clause providing for arbitration at Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration. Company X failed to pay for certain deliveries, and with the Claimant's permission, subsequently assigned its existing obligations to the Defendant. When the Defendant failed to make further payments, the Claimant initiated arbitral proceedings. The Defendant did not participate in arbitration. The tribunal found mostly in favor of the Claimant, who subsequently sought enforcement in Germany before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) München. The Oberlandesgericht München granted enforcement. It ruled that by submitting a certified copy of a non-authenticated award, the Claimant had complied with the formal conditions for enforcement under German law, which applied on the basis of the more-favorable-right provision under Article VII(1) NYC. It further considered German law does not require the party requesting enforcement to supply the arbitration agreement. The Oberlandesgericht noted that the Defendant failed to raise any grounds for non-enforcement under Article V(1) NYC, and considered that there were no grounds justifying non-enforcement by its own initiative under Article V(2) NYC. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
