Source: http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=10&menu=623&opac_view=-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:46:10+00:00

Document:
1. Article V (1)(c) of the New York Convention allows the competent authorities in Contracting States to refuse recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, or part of that award, where the award contains decisions on matters “beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration”.
793. Article 2 of the 1927 Geneva Convention states in relevant part: “If the award has not covered all the questions submitted to the arbitral tribunal, the competent authority of the country where recognition or enforcement of the award is sought can, if it think fit, postpone such recognition or enforcement or grant it subject to such guarantee as that authority may decide”.
794. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Report by the Secretary-General - Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, E/2822, p. 23.
795. See the chapter of the Guide on article V (1)(c), paras. 43-45.
4. Another concern raised at the time of drafting the provision that allows for partial recognition and enforcement was that “an arbitral award constitutes an organic whole, the spirit of which may be violated if it is split up into component parts.”796 That concern was not shared, and recent English case law, for example, has observed that “[i]mmediate enforcement of discrete parts of the award would go with the grain of the award, not undermine it or second guess it.”797 Ultimately the interest of facilitating enforcement of awards prevailed and the provision allowing partial enforcement of awards has since been applied broadly.
796. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Report by the Secretary-General —Corrigendum—Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, E/2822/Corr. 1, p. 1.
797. IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp., High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 17 April 2008,  EWHC 797 (Comm), para. 103.
5. Article V (1)(c) provides that courts may refuse to recognize or enforce an award if it addresses disputes outside of the terms of the “submission to arbitration”.
798. An arbitration agreement could take the form of either an arbitral clause in a contract or a separate arbitration agreement: for a further discussion about the form of the arbitration agreement, see the chapter of the Guide on article II, paras. 36-57.
799. Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 987-88, para. 1700(E. Gaillard, J. Savage eds., 1999); Christian Borris, Rudolf Hennecke, Commentary to Article V (1)(c), in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 309, 311, paras. 201-02 (R. Wolff ed., 2012); Paolo Michele Patocchi & Cesare Jermini, Article 194, in International Arbitration in Switzerland: an Introduction to and a Commentary on Articles 176-194 of the Swiss Private International Law Statute 661, para. 95 (S.V. Berti et al. eds., 2000); Ulrich Haas, The New York Convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards of 1958, in Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration 499, paras. 39-40 (F.-B. Weigand ed., 2002); Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Société Générale de l’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 23 December 1974, 508 F.2d 969 , 976, para. 11.
800. Seller v. Buyer, Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Stuttgart, Germany, 6 December 2001, 1 Sch 12/01, XXIV Y.B. Com. Arb. 742 (2004).
801. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impreglio SpA et al., House of Lords, England and Wales, 30 June 2005,  UKHL 43, para. 21.
8. Authors and courts have also considered whether article V (1)(c) provides grounds for refusing to recognize or enforce where the arbitrator’s decision goes beyond the parties’ pleadings or prayers for relief to render an award ultra petita. Though some authors have argued that article V (1)(c) provides a second, separate ground for refusal to enforce an award rendered ultra petita,802 courts have rejected challenges to recognition or enforcement under article V (1)(c) based on the fact that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by deciding on issues or granting forms of relief beyond those pleaded by the parties. As one United States court observed, “[u]nder the New York Convention, we examine whether the award exceeds the scope of the [arbitration agreement], not whether the award exceeds the scope of the parties’ pleadings”.803 This interpretation of article V (1)(c) which distinguishes the parties’ pleadings or prayers for relief from the “submission to arbitration” referred to in article V (1)(c), is consistent with a narrow interpretation of the grounds for refusal to recognize or enforce an award.
802. Jean François Poudret, Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 836-37, para. 913 (2007); Stefan Michael Kröll, Commentary on the German Arbitration Law (10th Book of the German Code of Civil Procedure), in Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice 541-42, para. 84 (K. H. Böckstiegel, S. Kröll, P. Nacimiento eds., 2007); Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira & Laurent Levy, Transgression of the Arbitrators’ Authority: Article V (1)(c) of the New York Convention, in Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice 639, 650-53 (E. Gaillard, D. Di Pietro eds., 2008).
803. Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould, Inc.; Gould Marketing, Inc.; Hoffman Export Corporation; Gould International, Inc., Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, United States of America, 30 June 1992, 969 F.2d 764; see also The Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc., District Court, Southern District of California, United States of America, 8 December 1998, Civ. Case No. 98-1165-B.
804. Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Storm LLC, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 2 November 2007, 524 F. Supp. 2d 332.
805. Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Société Générale de l’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 23 December 1974, 508 F.2d 969.
806. Mgmt. & Tech. Consultants S.A. v. Parsons-Jurden Int’l Corp., Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, United States of America, 8 July 1987, 820 F.2d 1531.
807. Shipowner v. Time Charterer, Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Hamburg, Germany, 30 July 1998, 6 Sch 3/98, XXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 641 (2000).
12. Leading commentators agree that article V (1)(c) does not apply to awards which fail to address all the issues submitted to the arbitral tribunal for resolution.808 Though there are no reported cases addressing whether article V (1)(c) applies to awards rendered infra petita, the view that such awards do not provide grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement is consistent with the text and spirit of the Convention.
808. Jean-François Poudret, Sebastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 836-37, para. 914 (2007); Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 987-88, para. 1700 (E. Gaillard, J. Savage eds., 1999); Stefan Michael Kröll, Commentary on the German Arbitration Law (10th Book of the German Code of Civil Procedure), in Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice 541-42, para. 84 (K. H. Böckstiegel, S. M. Kröll, P. Nacimiento eds., 2007).
13. First, the pleadings and requests for relief submitted by the parties to the arbitral tribunal do not constitute a “submission to arbitration” within the meaning of article V (1)(c) and therefore cannot provide the basis for a challenge to recognition or enforcement of an award under article V (1)(c), regardless of whether the award extends beyond the pleadings or requests for relief, or fails to address all of the issues raised therein.
14. Second, the text of article V (1)(c) only provides grounds for refusing to recognize or enforce awards that decide on issues which go “beyond” the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. Nothing in the language of article V (1)(c) grants enforcing authorities the discretion to refuse or otherwise limit the recognition or enforcement of an award which has failed to address all issues submitted by the parties, but which is otherwise enforceable as to the issues addressed.
809. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Comments by Governments on the Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, E/2822/Add. 4, p. 6.
810. Albert Jan van Den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation 320 (1981).
811. See the chapter of the Guide on article V (1)(c), paras. 5-11.
812. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 3544 (2014); Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter et al., Redfern & Hunter on International Arbitration 645-47 (2009); Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 986-87, para. 1700 (E. Gaillard, J. Savage eds., 1999); Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Société Générale de l’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 23 December 1974, 508 F.2d 969, 977, para. 13.
813. General Organization of Commerce and Industrialization of Cereals of the Arab Republic of Syria v. S.p.a. SIMER (Società delle Industrie Meccaniche di Rovereto), Court of Appeal of Trento, Civil Section, Italy, 14 January 1981, VIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 386 (1983).
814. See Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 1369-72 (2014); Bernard Hanotiau, Complex Arbitrations: Multiparty, Multicontract, Multi-Issue and Class Actions (2005), Chapter III. See also York Airconditioning & Refrigeration Inc. v. Lam Kwai Hung T/A North Sea A/C Elect Eng. Co., High Court, Supreme Court of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 16 December 1994,  1 HKC 287; and Four Seasons Hotels And Resorts B.V. et al. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., District Court, Southern District of Florida, United States of America, 12 May 2009, Case No. 04-20673-CIV-MOORE/ISIMONTON.
20. Parties have brought successful challenges to enforcement of arbitral awards under article V (1)(c) in several jurisdictions on the grounds that the arbitral award addressed a party that was not bound by the arbitration agreement. Several courts have therefore considered that ratione personae is also a “matter” within the meaning of article V (1)(c) and can therefore constitute a valid basis for an article V (1)(c) challenge to recognition or enforcement of an award.
815. Gerald Metals Inc. v. Wuhu Smelter & Refinery Co., Ltd. and Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc., Supreme People’s Court, China, 12 November 2003,  Min Si Ta Zi No. 12; First Investment Corp. (Marshall Island) v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding Corp. and Fujian Shipbuilding Corp., Supreme People’s Court, China, 27 February 2008,  Min Si Ta Zi No. 35, XXXV Y.B. Com. Arb. 349 (2010); Hemofarm DD, MAG International Trade Holding DD, Suram Media Ltd. v. Jinan Yongning Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Supreme People’s Court, China, 2 June 2008,  Min Si Ta Zi No. 11; Aoetker Germany v. Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd., Supreme People’s Court, China, 11 September 2001,  Jiao Ta Zi No. 11.
816. Aoetker Germany v. Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd., Supreme People’s Court, China, 11 September 2001,  Jiao Ta Zi No. 11.
817. FIAT S.p.A. v. The Ministry of Finance and Planning of the Republic of Suriname, Suriname Rice Export Company N.V. et al. v. Alvaro N. Sardi, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 12 October 1989, 1989 WL 122891, 4, para. 5.
818. O&Y Investments Ltd. v. OAO Bummash, Federal Arbitrazh Court, Northwestern District, Russian Federation, 12 October 2005, F09-2110/05-S6, XXXIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 687 (2008).
819. HiPP GmbH & Co. Export KG v. ZAO SIVMA, Highest Arbitrazh Court, Russian Federation, 14 June 2011, 1787/11.
820. Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v. R’as al-Khaimah National Oil Co., Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 24 March 1987, 3 W.L.R. [1986 D No. 2196] [1987 R No. 273].
821. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 3544-45 (2014); Alan Redfern, J. Martin Hunter et al., Redfern & Hunter on International Arbitration 645, para. 11.76 (2009) (referring to The Arab Republic of Egypt v. Southern Pacific Properties, Court of Appeal of Paris, France, 12 July 1984, 23 ILM (1984)); Paolo Michele Patocchi & Cesare Jermini, Article 194, in International Arbitration in Switzerland: an Introduction to and a Commentary on Articles 176-194 of the Swiss Private International Law Statute 660-61, para. 94 (S.V. Berti et al. eds., 2000); Stefan Michael Kröll, Commentary on the German Arbitration Law (10th Book of the German Code of Civil Procedure), in Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice 541, para. 83 (K.H. Böckstiegel, S. Kröll, P. Nacimiento eds., 2007); Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira & Laurent Levy, Transgression of the Arbitrators’ Authority: Article V (1)(c) of the New York Convention, in Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice 639, 639-40 (E. Gaillard, D. di Pietro eds., 2008). But see Jean François Poudret, Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 836-37, para. 913 (2007).
25. The language of article V (1)(c) is clear that recognition or enforcement of an award may be refused if it addresses issues which exceed the scope of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. Following a narrow interpretation of article V (1)(c), courts have consistently distinguished between examining the scope of the arbitration agreement itself and the scope of the underlying contract.
822. Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Société Générale de l’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 23 December 1974, 508 F.2d 969.
823. Fertilizer Corp. of India v. IDI Mgmt. Inc., District Court, Southern District of Ohio, United States of America, 9 June 1981, 517 F. Supp. 948.
824. American Pacific Corp. v. Sydsvensk Produktutveckling AB, Svea Court of Appeal, Sweden, 21 March 2001, Ö 4859-00, XXVII Y.B. Com. Arb. 551 (2002).
825. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Records of the Seventeenth Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.17, p. 9. See also Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958: An Overview, in Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice 59-60 (E. Gaillard, D. di Pietro eds., 2008).
826. Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira & Laurent Levy, Transgression of the Arbitrators’ Authority: Article V (1)(c) of the New York Convention, in Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice 639, 676 (E. Gaillard, D. di Pietro eds., 2008).
827. Four Seasons Hotels And Resorts B.V. et al. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., District Court, Southern District of Florida, United States of America, 12 May 2009, 1:04-cv-20673-KMM.
828. Gerald Metals Inc. v. Wuhu Smelter & Refinery Co., Ltd. and Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc., Supreme People’s Court, China, 12 November 2003,  Min Si Ta Zi No. 12.
829. FIAT S.p.A. v. The Ministry of Finance and Planning of the Republic of Suriname, Suriname Rice Export Company N.V. et al. v. Alvaro N. Sardi, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 12 October 1989, 1989 WL 122891.
830. See Christian Borris, Rudolf Hennecke, Commentary to Article V (1)(c), in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 309, 328, para. 259 (R. Wolff ed., 2012).
831. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 3444 (2014); Nicola Christine Port, Scott Ethan Bowers, Bethany Davis Noll, Article V (1)(c), in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 257, 276 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds., 2010).
832. See the chapter of the Guide on article V (1)(a).
833. Astro Nusantara International BV et al. v. PT Ayunda Prima Mitra et al., Court of First Instance, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong, 21 March 2012, HCCT 45/2010, para. 19.
35. At the same time, the provisions serve distinct purposes. Where article V (1)(a) concerns the existence of a valid arbitration agreement which is binding on all the parties addressed by an award, article V (1)(c) assumes the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and is concerned instead with whether an award has gone beyond the scope of the subject matter the parties intended to submit to arbitration.
36. However, this distinction is not always clearly made in practice. As noted above, courts in several jurisdictions have addressed the issue of whether a party has consented to be bound by an arbitration agreement as one falling under article V (1)(c) rather than V (1)(a). In practice, it is uncontroversial that a party’s lack of consent to arbitrate provides grounds for challenging recognition or enforcement of an award, regardless of which sub-paragraph of article V is invoked. However, addressing whether a party has consented to arbitrate under article V (1)(a) is ultimately consistent with the distinct purposes articles V (1)(a) and V (1)(c) that were given by the drafters of the Convention.
834. Article V (1)(c) provides that where grounds for refusal of recognizing or enforcing an award exist with respect to only part of an arbitral award, “that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized and enforced”, provided that matters properly within the scope of the arbitral agreement “can be separated from those not so submitted.” See the chapter of the Guide on article V (1)(c), paras.29-33.
835. See, e.g., J. J. Agro Industries (P) Ltd. v. Texuna International Ltd., High Court, Supreme Court of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 12 August 1992, HCMP000751/1992; Buyer (Austria) v. Seller (Serbia and Montenegro), Supreme Court, Austria, 26 January 2005, 3 Ob 221/04b. See also Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 3445-46 (2014).
836. Nigeria (NNPC) v. IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd., Court of Appeal, England and Wales, 21 October 2008,  EWCA Civ 1157. See also IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp., High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 17 April 2008,  EWHC 797 (Comm).
39. Article V (1) provides that it is the party against whom the award is invoked that may raise a challenge with respect to the grounds for refusal set forth in article V (1).
837. Ernesto Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT; Stolt Achievement, Inc.; Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Ltd.; Stolt Parcel Tankers, Inc., Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, United States of America, 4 June 2002, 293 F.3d 270; Odfjell SE v. OAO PO Sevmash, Highest Arbitrazh Court, Russian Federation, 26 May 2011 VAS-4369/11; Not indicated v. Not indicated, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Bremen, Germany, 30 September 1999, (2) Sch 04/99, XXXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 640 (2006).
838. Ernesto Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT; Stolt Achievement, Inc.; Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Ltd.; Stolt Parcel Tankers, Inc., Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, United States of America, 4 June 2002, 293 F.3d 270.
840. Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal, Switzerland, 16 September 2002, 14.2002.00042.
841. Mgmt. & Tech. Consultants S.A. v. Parsons-Jurden Int’l Corp., Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, United States of America, 8 July 1987, 820 F.2d 1531.
842. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impreglio SpA et al., House of Lords, England and Wales, 30 June 2005,  UKHL 43. See also Kersa Holding Co. Luxembourg v. Infancourtage, Famajuk Investment and Isny, Superior Court of Justice, Luxemburg, 24 November 1993, XXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 617 (1996).
843. Saroc S.p.A. v. Sahece, S.A., Supreme Court, Spain, 4 March 2003, XXXII Y.B. Com. Arb. 571 (2007).
844. Standard Elec. Corp. v. Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera, Industrial y Comercial, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 24 August 1990, 745 F. Supp. 172.
46. The language of article V (1)(c) does not explicitly impose any requirements that the challenges invoked under article V (1)(c) must be raised at any particular time during the arbitral procedure or thereafter.
845. Société Unichips Finanziaria SpA and Société Unichips International Bv Beslotene Venootschap v. François Gesnouin and Michèle Gesnouin, Court of Appeal of Paris, France, 12 February 1993, XIX Y.B. Com. Arb. 658 (1994).
846. Ansell S.A. v. OOO MedBusinessService-2000, Moscow Arbitrazh Court, Russian Federation, 15 April 2010, A40-24208/10-63-209.
847. Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership v. Stolt-Nielsen transportation Group, BV and Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Co. Ltd, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 11 June 2007, 491 F. Supp. 2d 413.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKHL 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKHL 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.