Russia / 03 August 2010 / Russia, Высший Арбитражный Суд Российской Федерации (Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation) / Ansell S.A. (France) v OOO MedBusinessService-2000 (Russia) / А40-24208/10-63-209
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Высший Арбитражный Суд Российской Федерации (Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation) |
| Date | 03 August 2010 |
| Parties | Ansell S.A. (France) v OOO MedBusinessService-2000 (Russia) |
| Case number | А40-24208/10-63-209 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(c) | V(2)(b) |
| Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 11 November 2009, an arbitral tribunal at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) seated in Stockholm (Sweden) rendered an award ordering the Russian company MedBusinessService-2000 to pay to the French company Ansell the amount of its principal debt, accrued interest, as well as arbitration expenses. The SCC award was granted recognition and enforcement by the first instance court (Moscow Arbitrazh Court). The first instance ruling was upheld by the court of cassation (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District). MedBusinessService-2000 requested the RF Highest Arbitrazh Court to re-examine the decisions of the lower courts in the supervisory proceedings, arguing that (1) the enforcement of the arbitral award would be contrary to the public policy of the Russian Federation, and (2) there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties. A three-judge panel of the RF Highest Arbitrazh Court refused to refer the case for supervisory review to the Court’s Presidium. Without expressly referring to the provisions of the NYC at this stage of the proceedings, the panel rejected the arguments of MedBusinessService-2000 for the following reasons. First, the panel considered that the enforcement of the arbitral award would not be contrary to the public policy of the Russian Federation since it would not produce results contrary to the universally recognized moral and ethical rules or threatening the citizens’ life and health, or the State’s security. Second, the panel found that a valid arbitration agreement was enshrined in a framework contract between the parties, and was subsequently confirmed in the arbitral proceedings, in which MedBusinessService-2000 participated, notably by filing an answer to the request for arbitration and a counterclaim, without objecting to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. |
| affirms : |
|
| see also : |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
