Colombia / 01 March 1999 / Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) / Merck & Co Inc. (US), Merck Frosst Canada Inc. & Frosst Laboratories Inc. (Colombia) v Tecnoquimicas S.A. (Colombia) / E-7474
| Country | Colombia |
| Court | Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) |
| Date | 01 March 1999 |
| Parties | Merck & Co Inc. (US), Merck Frosst Canada Inc. & Frosst Laboratories Inc. (Colombia) v Tecnoquimicas S.A. (Colombia) |
| Case number | E-7474 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | III | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) |
| Source |
http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia) |
| Summary | The parties entered into an agreement containing an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Newak. Following a dispute, Merck & Co Inc., Merck Frosst Canada Inc. and Frosst Laboratories Inc. initiated an ICC arbitration proceeding on 3 February 1997. On 29 July 1998, a sole arbitrator rendered an award whereby he affirmed his jurisdiction and ordered the Respondent to refrain from pursuing the arbitral proceeding before the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota. The ICC Secretariat issued an order whereby it affirmed that the award was final. On 26 January 1999, the Suprema Corte de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied enforcement of the award because it was not considered an "award" within the meaning of the NYC. Merck filed a recourse ('recurso de suplica') before the Suprema Corte de Justicia (Supreme Court). The Companies Merck and Frosst filed a recourse against the order of 26 January 1999 rejecting the request for enforcement of the ICC interim award rendered on 29 June 1998. The Corte Suprema de Justicia held that no enforcement should be granted to the award and confirmed the decision of 26 January 1999. The Suprema Corte de Justicia noted that the 26 January 1999 decision did not refer to the ICC Rules with respect to the enforcement proceedings. It considered that the two are different: the enforcement proceeding has to comply with the rules of the State where enforcement is sought, in accordance with the NYC. The Corte Suprema de Justicia analyzed Article I(1) NYC as applying to awards which finally or partially settle disputes between legal or natural persons. However the Corte Suprema de Justicia held that in the present case, the award affirmed the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and ordered Tecnoquimicas to refrain from continuing the arbitral proceedings it had initiated before the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota without settling the dispute on the merits. The Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that, under the NYC, "arbitral awards" substantially put an end to the arbitral proceeding and settle the dispute. |
| affirms : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
