France / 19 November 1982 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Norsolor v. Société Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi / I I0I92
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) |
| Date | 19 November 1982 |
| Parties | Société Norsolor v. Société Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi |
| Case number | I I0I92 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | I(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | A Turkish company (Pabalk) entered into a commercial representation agreement with a French company (Ugilor, which became Norsolor), which contained an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreement. A dispute arose and an award was rendered in Vienna on 26 October 1979 in favor of Pabalk. In an order issued on 4 February 1980, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Pursuant to Article 1028 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Norsolor challenged the enforcement order before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, which dismissed its claim. Norsolor appealed the enforcement order and the decision dismissing its claim before the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had ruled as amiable compositeur (ex aequo et bono) and therefore did not comply with its mandate. It also requested the suspension of the proceeding pending the decision of the Vienna Court of Appeal concerning the setting aside of the award. On 15 December 1981, the Cour d'appel de Paris decided to suspend the proceeding pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC. Afterwards, the Vienna Court of Appeal partially set aside the award on 29 January 1982, on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had breached Article 13 of the ICC Rules by failing to establish which national law was applicable and merely referring to the lex mercatoria. The Cour d'appel de Paris overturned the decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris and partially retracted the enforcement order. It first reasoned that the NYC (which had been ratified by France and Austria) was applicable to the case at hand since, in accordance with Article I NYC, it applies to the "recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought, and arising out of differences between persons, whether physical or legal" and "arbitral awards not considered as domestic awards in the State where their recognition and enforcement are sought". It then noted that the Vienna Court of Appeal had set aside certain sections of the operative part of the award and that the jurisdiction of the Vienna Court of Appeal was not disputed. Pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that it may refuse the recognition and enforcement of arbitral award which had been set aside by a competent authority of the country in which the award was rendered and thus decided to partially retract the enforcement order. |
| reversed by : | |
| follows : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
