Switzerland / 17 September 1976 / Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève / L Ltd. v. C S.A. (GE) / 549
| Country | Switzerland |
| Court | Switzerland, Cour de Justice de Genève (Geneva Court of Justice) |
| Date | 17 September 1976 |
| Parties | L Ltd. v. C S.A. (GE) |
| Case number | 549 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) |
| Source |
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de Justice de Genève |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | A contract of sale was entered into between L and C, which contained an arbitration agreement providing for International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration. A dispute arose between the parties and an award was rendered on 1 October 1973, in The Hague, in favor of L. L sought enforcement of the award in Switzerland pursuant to Article IV NYC by producing the original award, its sworn translation and the original contract containing the arbitration agreement. C opposed the enforcement on the ground that the award violated public policy pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC, as the arbitrators had consulted an expert in the chrome industry ex parte. The Tribunal de Première Instance of Geneva (Geneva Tribunal of First Instance) denied enforcement on the grounds that the arbitral procedure had not been in accordance with the arbitration agreement because the three arbitrators had “joined a fourth arbitrator”. L appealed the decision. C objected, claiming a violation of Article V(1)(b) NYC because it was unable to present its case, which means that the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties (Art. V(1)(d) NYC). The Cour de Justice de Genève (Court of Justice of Geneva) annulled the decision of the Tribunal de Première Instance of Geneva and allowed the enforcement of the award. The Cour de Justice of Geneva held that the NYC was applicable to determine whether C had been unable to present its case pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC, resulting in a violation of Article V(1)(d) NYC. It recalled that a violation of public policy could relate to the award itself or to the procedure according to which it has been rendered. The Cour de Justice added that enforcement of an award could only be denied in case of a violation of the fundamental principles of the Swiss legal order, as public policy could not be used to oust the application of international treaties. In the present case, the Cour de Justice held that the arbitrators sought external and professional advice on the commercial context of the chrome industry (which was not prohibited under Dutch law, the law of the seat the arbitration) but not on an issue which was determinative to the case. The Cour de Justice concluded that it did not amount to a violation of fundamental principles of Swiss public policy. The Cour de Justice further added that pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, an award can be set aside by a competent authority in the country which, or under the law of which, that award was made. C had however not seized the competent authorities in the Netherlands. |
| affirmed by : |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
