Source: http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=concept_see&id=154&page=3&nbr_lignes=112&l_typdoc=a
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 18:30:39
Document Index: 515229986

Matched Legal Cases: ['§17', '§20', '§66', 'art) 1', 'art) 1', '§19', '§24', '§51', '§60']

Germany / 10 August 2006 / Germany, Kammergericht / 20 Sch 07/04
Case number 20 Sch 07/04
Applicable NYC Provisions VII | V | IV | III | V(1)(e) | V(2)(a) | VII(1) | V(1)(a) | IV(2) | IV(1)(b)
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Kammergericht
Summary In relation to a joint venture contract for the exploration of Lithuanian oil fields, a tribunal constituted under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), seated in Copenhagen, ordered the Respondents, a foreign state and a company incorporated under the laws of that state, to pay damages to the Applicant as joint and several debtors. The foreign state issued a resolution stating that it did not consider it appropriate to seek annulment of the award at the seat of the arbitration. The Applicant applied for enforcement of the award in Germany. The foreign state opposed enforcement before the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court Berlin) arguing that (i) it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, (ii) the arbitration agreement did not encompass disputes regarding the oil fields, (iii) this was a dispute about natural resources which were in the public law domain and thus not susceptible to arbitration, and (iv) that it had not been fully granted the right to be heard. The foreign state further argued that its resolution did not constitute a waiver of the right to seek an annulment of the award and that the time limit for seeking annulment had not yet passed. In addition, it sought that the arbitral tribunal’s factual findings be fully reassessed by the Kammergericht. The Respondent company opposed enforcement of the award, stating that (i) the Applicant had not fulfilled the formal requirements for enforcement as it had not submitted a notarized translation of the arbitration agreement, (ii) that the application for enforcement would constitute an abuse of law as the Applicant was not willing to comply with the award issued for the counter claims raised by the Respondent company, and (iii) that the recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to German public policy. It further argued that it did not have any attachable assets in Germany due to which the Kammergericht did not have jurisdiction over it. The Kammergericht declared the award enforceable against the Respondent state but not the company. It found that the application met the formal requirements for a declaration of enforceability and that pursuant to Section 1064 paras 1 and 3 of the German Civil Procedure Code the Applicant need only provide a certified copy of the arbitral award. It held that while Articles IV(1)(b) and IV(2) NYC required submission of the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and a certified translation of the award, under the more-favorable-right provision at Article VII(1) NYC, the less stringent requirements of German law would be applicable. The Kammergericht noted that this interpretation was also in line with Article III NYC according to which the recognition of foreign awards could not be subject to substantially more onerous conditions than the recognition of domestic awards. On the merits, the Kammergericht concluded that the Respondent state was precluded from raising objections since it had previously, by way of its resolution, abstained from seeking annulment of the award at the arbitral seat, even though the award could only be set aside at the seat. According to the Kammergericht, for the Respondent state to object to enforcement now was in contradiction to its previous stance and against good faith. With respect to the Respondent company, the Kammergericht refused to declare the award enforceable, finding that the application was inadmissible since the company did not own assets in Germany. The Kammergericht concluded that its finding of inadmissibility was not barred under the NYC as it did not involve a decision on the merits of the dispute and the NYC did not address general admissibility requirements in addition to the specific requirements stipulated in the NYC.
Germany / 17 April 2008 / Bundesgerichtshof / III ZB 97/06
IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / a. Documents specified under article IV(1) / §17
IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (IV) / b. Documents specified under article IV(2) / §20
IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / A. The requirement that the applicant provide the arbitration agreement 'referred to in article II' / §66
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1318&opac_view=6
Singapore / 10 May 2006 / Singapore, High Court / Aloe Vera of America, Inc v. Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and Another / [2006] 3 SLR 174, [2006] SGHC 104 78, OS 762/2004, RA 327/2005
Parties Aloe Vera of America, Inc v. Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and Another
Case number [2006] 3 SLR 174, [2006] SGHC 104 78, OS 762/2004, RA 327/2005
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4171&opac_view=6
Spain / 31 May 2005 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Pueblo Film Distribution Hungary KFT v. Laurenfilm S.A. / ATS 6700/2005
Parties Pueblo Film Distribution Hungary KFT v. Laurenfilm S.A.
Case number ATS 6700/2005
Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4021&opac_view=6
Spain / 26 October 2004 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Sica Pyrenees Fruits v. Frutas y Hortalizas el Lobo / ATS 12148/2004
Parties Sica Pyrenees Fruits v. Frutas y Hortalizas el Lobo
Case number ATS 12148/2004
Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | I(2) | II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4022&opac_view=6
Germany / 21 July 2004 / Germany, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) / VI Sch (Kart) 1/02
Case number VI Sch (Kart) 1/02
Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(2)(b) | IV(1)(b) | IV(1)(a)
Summary The Respondent entered into Lead Agreement with the Applicant which granted the Applicant an exclusive global license for the construction and sale of heat exchangers and under which the Respondent also agreed to stop producing and selling the licensed objects itself. Subsequently, as per the Lead Agreement, both parties entered into a separate license agreement and a side agreement, which stated that all agreements concluded in connection with the Lead Agreement would only be declaratory in nature, with the parties’ commitments being limited to those made in the Lead Agreement. The Lead Agreement and the license agreement both contained identical arbitration clauses. A dispute arose and the Applicant alleged that the Respondent had violated the terms of the exclusive global license and its commitment not to compete with the Respondent. The Applicant initiated arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Rules) with the seat in Zurich, which rendered an award that was largely in the Applicant’s favor. The Applicant sought to enforce the award before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf, which the Respondent opposed, arguing that the license agreement was a sham and that, in any case, it was void since it did not meet the form requirements of German competition law. In addition, the Respondent alleged that enforcement should be rejected under Article V(2)(b) NYC because the agreement violated European and German competition law. The Oberlandesgericht declared the award enforceable, holding that the Applicant had met the formal requirements set out in Article IV(1) NYC read with Section 1064(1) of the German Civil Procedure Code, as it had submitted certified copies of the award and of the arbitration agreement as per Article IV(1)(a) and IV(1)(b) NYC. The Oberlandesgericht found that even if the arbitration clauses were void, this would not prevent recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award since the Respondent had participated in the merits phase of the arbitration. The Oberlandesgericht found that the German competition law provisions cited by the Respondent were not applicable. With respect to the alleged violation of German public policy, the Oberlandesgericht clarified that it would not have any discretion to refuse enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC if the arbitral award indeed violated German public policy. It said that it was not bound by the factual or legal findings of the arbitral tribunal in determining whether the award violated public policy. It also held that the burden fell upon the Respondent to prove that any of the grounds for refusal of enforcement were applicable. Regarding public policy, it stated that an award violated German public policy when it violated the fundamental principles of the legal, economic and/or social order of the state in such an obvious and significant manner that the decision was unacceptable under basic national principles. Therefore, the recognition of a foreign arbitral award was not subject to any different, and in particular, any less restrictive or further reaching requirements than foreign court judgments. The Oberlandesgericht said that while the fundamental provisions of German competition law and the provisions of European competition law, which are directly effective in Germany, formed part of German public policy, provisions which served merely a practical purpose, such as the form requirement under Section 34 of the German Law Against Restraints on Competition applicable at that time, were not part of public policy. It clarified that the relevant time for assessing a violation of German public policy was at the time of enforcement, and not the time at which the award was rendered or the parties had concluded the agreements in question. Finally, the Oberlandesgericht rejected the argument that there had been any public policy violations, stating that the Respondent had failed to prove the facts on which its objection was based.
V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / c. Mandatory rules as public policy / §19
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1317&opac_view=6
Hungary / 2004 / Hungary, Kúria (Supreme Court of Hungary) / EBH2004.1048
Case number EBH2004.1048
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b)
Hungary / 2002 / Hungary, Kúria (Supreme Court of Hungary) / EBH2002.773
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5314&opac_view=6
Switzerland / 08 December 2003 / Switzerland, Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal) / 4P.173/2003/ech
Date 08 December 2003
Case number 4P.173/2003/ech
Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b)
Summary A contract was concluded between A and B for the sale of goods destined to C. The contract provided for ICC arbitration in London. A dispute arose and the sole arbitrator rendered a partial award which ordered specific sums to be paid by A. A challenge by A before the Paris Court of Appeal was dismissed and fees and costs were awarded to the respondent. Eventually a final award was rendered, ordering A to pay further sums. Upon being notified of the final award, A had recourse to the High Court in London. B sought the recognition and enforcement of the partial award and the order of the Paris Court of Appeal before the Tribunal of First Instance in Geneva. The Tribunal of First Instance so ordered and its decision was upheld by the Geneva Court of Justice. A appealed. The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It held that Article IV(1)(b) NYC requires an original copy of the arbitration agreement: although the respondent had not produced the agreement before the Tribunal of First Instance it did produce it on appeal, thereby complying with Article IV(1)(b) NYC (3.1). With respect to the partial nature of the award, the Tribunal held that Article V(1)(e) NYC allows for non-enforcement when an award has not become binding on the parties. The partial award, on the issues finally decided, was thus capable of enforcement (3.1). Although obiter, the Tribunal observed that ‘[a]n enforcement order will thus not be granted if […] [the award] is set aside in the country of origin’ or there is an action to set it aside (3.1). It also noted that, pursuant to the NYC, an award need not necessarily be enforceable in its country of origin for it to be granted enforcement in another country (3.1). The Federal Tribunal also rejected the argument that the enforcement of the partial award was contrary to public policy, under Article V(2)(b) NYC (4.1).
IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / D. '[A]t the time of the application' / §24
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=567&opac_view=6
Spain / 21 October 2003 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Toepfer International GmbH. v. Sociedad Ibérica de Molturación S.A. (SIMSA) / ATS 10806/2003
Parties Toepfer International GmbH. v. Sociedad Ibérica de Molturación S.A. (SIMSA)
Case number ATS 10806/2003
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4029&opac_view=6
Spain / 07 October 2003 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Shaanxi Provincial Medical Health Productos I/E Corporation v. Olpesa S.A. / ATS 10137/2003
Date 07 October 2003
Parties Shaanxi Provincial Medical Health Productos I/E Corporation v. Olpesa S.A.
Case number ATS 10137/2003
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4031&opac_view=6
Spain / 07 October 2003 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / The Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited v. Hermanos Vila S.A. / ATS 10039/2003
Parties The Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited v. Hermanos Vila S.A.
Case number ATS 10039/2003
Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4032&opac_view=6
Canada / 06 March 2003 / Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia / Eddie Javor v. Luke Francoeur / L022829
Court Canada, Supreme Court of British Columbia
Date 06 March 2003
Parties Eddie Javor v. Luke Francoeur
Case number L022829
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
2003 BCSC 350 | online: CanLII
Summary The Claimant, Javor, entered into an agreement with Fusion-Crete Products Inc. (“Fusion-Crete”) containing a clause providing for arbitration pursuant to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. During the course of the arbitration, the arbitrator made a finding that the Respondent, Francoeur, was the alter-ego of Fusion-Crete and ordered the addition of Francoeur as a party to the proceedings and eventually held Francoeur personally liable for damages awarded against Fusion-Crete. Javor sought enforcement before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Francoeur opposed enforcement on the grounds that (i) the British Columbia Foreign Arbitral Awards Act (“FAAA”), which has as its Schedule and implements the NYC, and the International Commercial Arbitration Act (“ICAA”), which implements the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”), did not apply to “non-parties” to the agreement; (ii) the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement; (iii) the subject-matter of the dispute was not capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of British Columbia and the award should therefore not be enforced pursuant to Article V(2)(a) FAAA (which mirrors Article V(2)(a) NYC) and the ICAA; and (iv) the recognition of the award was contrary to public policy pursuant to Article V(2)(b) of the FAAA (which mirrors Article V(2)(b) NYC) and the ICAA. The Supreme Court of British Columbia denied the application to enforce the award. It considered that Javor was required to show that the arbitration award it sought to enforce fell clearly within the provisions of the FAAA or the ICAA. Referring to Articles II, III, IV and V of the FAAA (which mirror Articles II, III, IV and V NYC), and Sections 2(1) and 7(1) of the ICCA, the Court noted the overall similarity between the two statutes, and that they were identically worded in several instances. The Court considered that the existence of an arbitration agreement is the common foundation upon which each of the statutes rests, and that their obvious goal was to allow enforcement of an award against a party signatory to the agreement. On this basis, the Court concluded that it is the intention of both the FAAA and the ICAA to limit enforcement of awards to the parties to the arbitration agreement, and that because Francoeur was not a named party or signatory to the agreement, an award for costs could not be enforced against him. The Court rejected Javor’s argument that the lack of the definition of a “party” in the FAAA entailed that awards could be enforced against persons procedurally added as parties during arbitration. It noted that Article II(2) of the FAAA (which mirrors Article II(2) NYC) referred to an arbitration agreement “signed by the parties” and that the requirement under Article IV(1)(b) FAAA (which mirrors Article IV(1)(b) NYC) to supply an original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement appeared to be directed to the ability of the court to verify the signatory parties and the existence of an arbitration clause within that agreement. The Court accepted Francoeur’s defence to enforcement based on Article V(1)(d) of the FAAA (which mirrors Article V(1)(d) NYC), considering that the agreement of the parties did not provide for the involvement of Francoeur in the arbitration and therefore the procedure employed by the arbitrator was inconsistent with the arbitration agreement. The Court also exercised its discretion to accept Francoeur’s defense to enforcement based on Article V(2)(a) of the FAAA (which mirrors Article V(2)(a) NYC), considering that because Francoeur was not a proper party to the arbitration clause, pursuant to British Columbia law the claim against him for personal liability could not properly have been a subject of the arbitration, but would rather be a matter for judicial determination. Finally, the Court declined to reach a decision concerning Francoeur’s objection that the enforcement of the award would violate public policy pursuant to Article V(2)(b) of the FAAA (which mirrors Article V(2)(b) NYC), considering that it had not been able to gauge sufficiently the strength of the evidence that led the arbitrator to find that Francoeur was the alter ego of Fusion-Crete.
Canada / 25 February 2004 / Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia / Eddie Javor v. Luke Francoeur / CA030720
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=957&opac_view=6
Spain / 21 January 2003 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Shaanxi Provincial Medical Health Products I/E Corporation v. Olpesa S.A. / ATS 599/2003
Parties Shaanxi Provincial Medical Health Products I/E Corporation v. Olpesa S.A.
Case number ATS 599/2003
Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4036&opac_view=6
Canada / 11 December 2002 / Canada, Court of Appeal of Manitoba / Sheldon Proctor v. Leon Schellenberg / AI02-30-05317
Court Canada, Court of Appeal of Manitoba
Date 11 December 2002
Parties Sheldon Proctor v. Leon Schellenberg
Case number AI02-30-05317
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V
2002 MBCA 170 | online: CanLII
Summary The Respondent opened a trading account with First Options of Chicago (“First Options”), a brokerage house, and signed, among other documents, an Arbitration Agreement containing a reference to First Options. First Options did not sign the Arbitration Agreement. The Respondent’s account was then transferred to E. D. & F. Man International, Inc. (“Man International”). The Respondent continued to use the account until it was closed due to differences between the Respondent and the Applicant, who had been the Respondent’s broker during the duration of the account and who demanded that the Respondent pay the deficit in his account at the time it was closed. The Respondent replied by sending the Arbitration Agreement to the Applicant’s counsel. The Respondent’s trading account was subsequently assigned to the Applicant by Man International. The Applicant commenced arbitration proceedings in Illinois and obtained a favourable award against the Respondent, who did not participate in the proceeding. The Applicant obtained enforcement of the award before the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. The Respondent appealed, arguing that the Applicant had failed to satisfy Article IV(1)(b) NYC by failing to supply the court with an “agreement in writing” as referred to in Article II(2) NYC. The Court of Appeal of Manitoba upheld the decision of the lower court granting enforcement. It considered that an “agreement in writing” under Article II(2) NYC can take various forms and the term must be given a functional and pragmatic interpretation. In this case, after the Applicant made its demand for arbitration, the Respondent had replied by faxing a copy of the Arbitration Agreement to the Applicant, whose counsel accepted the document. The Court of Appeal considered that this met the requirements of Article II(2) NYC and that it was unnecessary to decide on the other questions raised.
Canada / 22 April 2002 / Canada, Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba / Sheldon Proctor v. Leon Schellenberg / CI 01-01-23778
II / 2. ANALYSIS (II) / ARTICLE II(2) / b. Non-exhaustive list of documents / §51
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=903&opac_view=6
Spain / 08 October 2002 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Scandlines AB and Scandlines Danmark A/S v. Ferrys del Mediterráneo S.L. / ATS 1770/2002
Date 08 October 2002
Parties Scandlines AB and Scandlines Danmark A/S v. Ferrys del Mediterráneo S.L.
Case number ATS 1770/2002
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | VI
Spain / 22 May 2002 / Spain, Audiencia Provincial de Cádiz (Provincial Court of Cádiz) / Scandlines Danmarck A/S and Scandlines AB v. Ferrys Del Mediterraneo S.A / AAP CA 482/2002
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4038&opac_view=6
Spain / 24 September 2002 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Mare Blu Societa di Navigazione Arl v. Harinas del Guadalquivir S.L. / ATS 1283/2002
Date 24 September 2002
Parties Mare Blu Societa di Navigazione Arl v. Harinas del Guadalquivir S.L.
Case number ATS 1283/2002
Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4039&opac_view=6
Spain / 17 September 2002 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Pulses Trade Establishment v. Legumbres Luengo S.A. / ATS 1019/2002
Parties Pulses Trade Establishment v. Legumbres Luengo S.A.
Case number ATS 1019/2002
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4667&opac_view=6
Switzerland / 31 May 2002 / Switzerland, Bundesgericht / 4P.102/2001
Case number 4P.102/2001
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V
Summary A broker arranged for the negotiation of a charter party between the Applicant and the Respondent under which the Applicant was to transport used cars to Libya in two shipments. The charter party contained a reference to the general terms and conditions, which contained an arbitration clause. Neither party signed the charter party. A dispute arose in relation to the shipment and the Applicant initiated arbitration proceedings in London, obtaining a favorable award. It then sought to have the award declared enforceable by the Bezirksgericht (Regional Court) Zurich, which rejected the request. The Applicant appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Obergericht (Higher Cantonal Court) Zurich, after which it filed a complaint (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) to the Bundesgericht (Swiss Federal Tribunal). The Applicant alleged that the Respondent had received a copy of the same general terms and conditions in the context of an earlier charter party that had been arranged by the same broker, and that it had implicitly accepted the arbitration clause contained in the general terms and conditions by way of several written confirmations. The Bundesgericht dismissed the complaint and confirmed the lower court’s decision refusing enforcement of the award. The Bundesgericht noted that the parties disputed whether there was an agreement in writing in the terms of Article II(2) NYC, as required for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Article II(1) NYC. The Bundesgericht held that under Article IV(1)(b) NYC the burden was upon the Applicant to provide to the court not only the arbitral award, but also an arbitration agreement which met the form requirements of Article II(2) NYC. It further noted that contrary to what the Applicant seemed to allege, the burden of proof was reversed only in the context of Article V NYC, which describes the grounds under which the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may exceptionally be refused. The Bundesgericht concluded that the Applicant had failed to prove that there existed an arbitration agreement in accordance with the form requirements under Article II(2) NYC, while noting that the Applicant had not asserted that the arbitration agreement was contained in the charter party. Moreover, the Bundesgericht found that the Applicant had failed to establish that there existed an exchange of letters containing the arbitration clause since it had failed to provide evidence that the Respondent had received the document containing the arbitration clause, or that there were other circumstances due to which the Respondent would have had knowledge of the arbitration clause. The Bundesgericht thus concluded that it could not be assumed that the Respondent, through its confirmation letters, had implicitly accepted the arbitration clause.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1417&opac_view=6
Spain / 12 March 2002 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / D. Braulio v. Travelplan S.A. / ATS 5385/2002
Date 12 March 2002
Parties D. Braulio v. Travelplan S.A.
Case number ATS 5385/2002
Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4041&opac_view=6
Spain / 26 February 2002 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Strategic Bulk Carriers Inc. v. Sociedad Ibérica de Molturación S.A. / ATS 4671/2002
Parties Strategic Bulk Carriers Inc. v. Sociedad Ibérica de Molturación S.A.
Case number ATS 4671/2002
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4042&opac_view=6
Austria / 25 April 2001 / Austria, Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) / B**** v. S**** / 3Ob75/01b
Date 25 April 2001
Parties B**** v. S****
Case number 3Ob75/01b
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3890&opac_view=6
Spain / 13 March 2001 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Project XJ200 Ltd v. H. Capital S.A. (Portic S.A.) / ATS 773/2001
Date 13 March 2001
Parties Project XJ200 Ltd v. H. Capital S.A. (Portic S.A.)
Case number ATS 773/2001
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4048&opac_view=6
Germany / 22 February 2001 / Bundesgerichtshof / III ZB 71/99
Date 22 February 2001
Case number III ZB 71/99
Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(e) | IV(1)(b) | IV(1)(a)
Summary The Parties concluded a contract containing a clause providing for arbitration before the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Moscow. The Claimant obtained a favorable award. The Defendant sought annulment before the Moscow District Court, which set aside the award. This decision was first affirmed by the Moscow Court of Appeal, and subsequently annulled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and referred back to the Moscow District Court, which finally denied the request for setting aside. In the meantime, the Claimant sought enforcement in Germany but – prior to the annulment of the initial setting aside decision – the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Rostock denied enforcement. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) reversed the decision of the Oberlandesgericht Rostock and granted enforcement. The Bundesgerichtshof relied on the Russian decisions ultimately denying Defendant’s request to set aside the award, which had been rendered after the Court of Appeal's decision. It held that the Claimant's submission of a duly certified copy of the arbitral award that reproduced a non-authenticated original award could be deemed to comply with the conditions of Article IV(1)(a) NYC, since the existence and authenticity of the award was undisputed. It further held that the requirement under Article IV(1)(b) NYC can be departed from when the party resisting enforcement does not dispute the alleged contents of the arbitration agreement, as was the case here. Finally, it considered that the grounds for refusal under Article V(1)(e) NYC no longer existed because the arbitral award had become binding on the Parties in the meantime and had not been set aside.
Germany / 28 October 1999 / Germany, Oberlandesgericht Rostock / 1 Sch 03/99
IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / ARTICLE IV(1)(a) / c. Whether certification must be of an authenticated original award / §60
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=256&opac_view=6
Spain / 19 December 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / General Feeds Incorporated v. Lumar Barcelona S.A. / ATS 1677/2000
Date 19 December 2000
Parties General Feeds Incorporated v. Lumar Barcelona S.A.
Case number ATS 1677/2000
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4050&opac_view=6
Spain / 28 November 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Precious Stones Shipping Limited v. Querqus Alimentaria S.L. / ATS 1239/2000
Date 28 November 2000
Parties Precious Stones Shipping Limited v. Querqus Alimentaria S.L.
Case number ATS 1239/2000
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4051&opac_view=6
1 2 3 4 (61 - 90 / 112) Per page : 25 50 100 Display all