Switzerland / 14 March 1984 / Switzerland, Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal) / Denysiana SA v. Jassica SA / 110 Ib 191
| Country | Switzerland |
| Court | Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) |
| Date | 14 March 1984 |
| Parties | Denysiana SA v. Jassica SA |
| Case number | 110 Ib 191 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | I(3) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(1) |
| Source |
http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Jassica sought enforcement in Switzerland of an arbitral award rendered against Danysiana in Paris. Both the Tribunal de Première Instance de Genève (First Instance Tribunal of Geneva) and the Cour de Justice de Genève (Court of Justice of Geneva) granted enforcement of the award. Denysiana appealed to the Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal). The Tribunal Fédéral confirmed the decision of the Cour de Justice de Genève. It noted that France and Switzerland are bound by the Treaty on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters dated 15 June 1869 (“the Bilateral Treaty”) and the NYC, both of which contain provisions regarding enforcement of arbitral awards rendered in another country. The Tribunal observed that Article IV NYC requires that the party seeking enforcement produce the original award and the arbitration agreement or a copy certified thereof. In the present case, Jassica had filed the arbitral award, along with the decision of the Court of Appeal of Paris denying the application to have the award set aside and a certificate from the Cour de cassation confirming the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal. The Tribunal Fédéral also noted that Article VII(1) provides that the NYC “shall not affect the validity of multilateral or bilateral agreements concerning the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards entered into by Contracting States”. It held that it was therefore allowed for Contracting States to derogate from the NYC by the adoption of stricter or more liberal rules. Noting that the NYC was concluded long after the Bilateral Treaty, adding that its adoption had the purpose of facilitating recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, the Tribunal Fédéral concluded that both Switzerland and France had intended that parties benefit from more favorable conditions, pursuant to the principle of maximum effectiveness. The party opposing enforcement, Denysiana, alleged that it was not served proper notice of the decision of the Cour de cassation and thus, based on the NYC, the decision was inapplicable to it. The Tribunal Fédéral ruled that pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, it is for the party opposing enforcement to prove that the award is not binding, and nothing on the record showed that the award was not final between the parties. |
| see also : |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
