Source: http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=concept_see&id=70&page=6&nbr_lignes=182&l_typdoc=a
Timestamp: 2020-03-30 16:45:49
Document Index: 461374980

Matched Legal Cases: ['§60', '§35', '§50', '§12', '§86', '§9', '§58']

United States / 17 June 2005 / U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit / TMR Energy Ltd. (Cyprus) v. State Property Fund of Ukraine (Ukraine) / 03-7191
Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Parties TMR Energy Ltd. (Cyprus) v. State Property Fund of Ukraine (Ukraine)
Case number 03-7191
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(c)
Source 411 F.3d 296, online: PACER
Summary TMR Energy Ltd. (“TMR”) filed an action in U.S. federal court to confirm an arbitral award obtained against the State Property Fund of Ukraine (“SPF”) in Sweden. The court ruled in favor of TMR and SPF appealed. SPF contended that (i) the arbitrators exceeded their powers (relying on Article V(1)(c) NYC), and that (ii) the award was contrary to United States public policy (relying on Article V(2)(b) NYC). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected SPF’s arguments and confirmed the award. The Court held that SPF had not shown any grounds for non-enforcement of the award under Article V NYC. In particular, the Court held that the arbitrators’ determination of liability was based on the agreement between the Parties, which contained an arbitration clause. Thus, the Court found no ground under V(1)(c) NYC to refuse enforcement. Accordingly, it held that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia correctly entered judgment against SPF.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=708&opac_view=6
United Kingdom / 29 April 2005 / England and Wales, High Court / The Republic of Ecuador v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company / 2004 FOLIO 656
Date 29 April 2005
Parties The Republic of Ecuador v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company
Case number 2004 FOLIO 656
Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1) | V(1)(c)
[2005] EWHC 774 (Comm) | online: BAILII
United Kingdom / 09 September 2005 / England and Wales, Court of Appeal / Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador / A3/2005/1121
United Kingdom / 02 March 2006 / England and Wales, High Court / The Republic of Ecuador v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company / 04/656
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5357&opac_view=6
Spain / 20 July 2004 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Antilles Cement Corporation v. Transficem / ATS 9443/2004
Date 20 July 2004
Parties Antilles Cement Corporation v. Transficem
Case number ATS 9443/2004
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | III | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4025&opac_view=6
United States / 23 March 2004 / U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit / Karaha Bodas Co. (Cayman Islands) v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (Indonesia) / 02-20042, 03-20602
Date 23 March 2004
Parties Karaha Bodas Co. (Cayman Islands) v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (Indonesia)
Case number 02-20042, 03-20602
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(b)
Source 364 F.3d 274
Summary Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), a company owned by the Government of Indonesia, entered into a contract with Karaha Bodas Co. (“KBC”), a Cayman Islands company, to develop geothermal energy sources in Indonesia for electrical power generation. The parties executed two contracts, both of which contained an arbitration clause providing for the application of Indonesian law. A dispute arose and KBC initiated arbitration proceedings in Switzerland. The Arbitral Tribunal rendered an award in favor of KBC. KBC then filed suit in federal court in Texas to enforce the award under the NYC. Meanwhile, Pertamina applied to the Supreme Court of Switzerland to have the award set aside. Pertamina subsequently sought annulment before Indonesian courts which annulled the award. The award was enforced in United States federal district court. Pertamina appealed, arguing: (i) that Indonesian courts had primary jurisdiction to annul the award, providing a defense to enforcement in the United States pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, (ii) that the Arbitral Tribunal improperly consolidated the claims into one arbitration proceeding (V(1)(c) NYC), (iii) that due process had been violated and therefore the enforcement should be refused pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC, (iv) that the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement (V(1)(d) NYC), and (v) that the enforcement of the award would violate the public policy of the United States under Article V(2)(b) NYC, as the award violated the doctrine of abuse of rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed Pertamina’s appeal and enforced the award. It held that only Swiss courts had jurisdiction to annul the award since the seat of the arbitration was in Switzerland. It also found no violation of Article V(1)(c) NYC noting that the two contracts were closely related and the Tribunal properly consolidated arbitration proceedings. The Court dismissed the defense based on Article V(1)(d) NYC noting that Pertamina did not designate an arbitrator within thirty days, nor did it object to KBC's selection at that time. The Court held that there had been no violation of due process under the terms of Article V(1)(b) NYC, as both parties had an opportunity to be heard in a “meaningful manner”. Finally, the Court held that the award did not violate any basic notion of morality and justice and concluded that there was no public policy ground on which to refuse enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC.
V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Ex officio review, burden of proof and standard of proof / §60
V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Procedural public policy / §35
V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a. Estoppel and waiver / §50
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=653&opac_view=6
Uruguay / 18 February 2004 / Uruguay, Suprema Corte de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) / Vao Techmashexport v. Antigrad Latinoamericana S.A. / 41/2004
Date 18 February 2004
Parties Vao Techmashexport v. Antigrad Latinoamericana S.A.
Case number 41/2004
Applicable NYC Provisions II | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5826&opac_view=6
China / 12 November 2003 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Gerald Metals Inc. v. Wuhu Smelter & Refinery Co., Ltd. and Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc. / [2003] Min Si Ta Zi No.12 ([2003]民四他字第12号)
Date 12 November 2003
Parties Gerald Metals Inc. v. Wuhu Smelter & Refinery Co., Ltd. and Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc.
Case number [2003] Min Si Ta Zi No.12 ([2003]民四他字第12号)
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(c) | V(1)(b)
Guide on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 30-35 (People's Court Press, Vol. 1, 2004).
Summary Gerald Metals Inc. (GMI) and Wuhu Smeltery & Refinery Co., Ltd. (Wuhu Smelter) entered into an agreement for the sale of cooper. The parties' contract provided for arbitration in London according to the rules of the London Metal Exchange (LME). A dispute arose with regard to the delivery of the cooper. On 7 December 2001, GMI submitted a request for arbitration to the LME against Wuhu Smelter and another company, Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc. (Wuhu Hengxin). On 23 May 2002, the tribunal rendered an award ordering both respondents, Wuhu Smelter and Wuhu Hengxin, to pay damages to GMI. GMI applied for recognition of the award on 19 November 2002 with the Anhui Higher People's Court. Wuhu Smelter challenged the application on the grounds that: (i) Wuhu Smeltery did not receive any notice regarding the appointment of arbitrators and the arbitration proceedings and as a result was not permitted to present its case and according to Article V(1)(b) NYC the award should not be recognised; (ii) GMI did not submit its application for recognition within the required time frame; and (iii) Wuhu Smeltery was not capable performing the award. Wuhu Hengxin challenged the application on the basis that it was not a party to the agreement and therefore did not consent to the LME arbitration. The Anhui Higher People's Court opined that the award should not be recognised according to Article V(1)(c) NYC. In particular, the court opined that the award was beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement because it identified Wuhu Hengxin, who was not a party to the agreement between GMI and Wuhu Smeltery, as one of the respondents and it was unclear as to whom the award was directed. The Anhui Higher People’s Court reported its opinion to the Supreme People’s Court (最高人民法院) for review in accordance with the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Adjudication of the Relevant Issues About Foreign-related Arbitration and Foreign Arbitral Matters by the People's Court. The Supreme People’s Court opined that the award should not be recognised with respect to Wuhu Hengxin and that it should be recognised with respect to Wuhu Smeltery. Furthermore and with reference to Article V(1)(c) NYC, the court opined that the portion of the award that dealt specifically with Wuhu Smeltery's liability should be recognised whereas the portion of award where liability amongst the two respondents is indistinguishable should not be recognised.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=775&opac_view=6
Spain / 04 March 2003 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Saroc SPA v. Sahece S.A. / ATS 2447/2003
Date 04 March 2003
Parties Saroc SPA v. Sahece S.A.
Case number ATS 2447/2003
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4035&opac_view=6
Switzerland / 05 February 2003 / Switzerland, Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino / 14.2002.81
Date 05 February 2003
Case number 14.2002.81
Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b)
www.sentenze.ti.ch (website of the Canton of Ticino), published with the authorization of the competent authorities
Summary The International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation rendered an award in Moscow, which X relied upon to obtain a payment order from the Ufficio di Esecuzione di Lugano (Debt Collection Office of Lugano). Y raised an objection (opposizione) to the issuance of the payment order and X requested dismissal of the objection (rigetto definitivo) before the Pretore del Distretto di Lugano (First Instance Court of Lugano). Y argued that the exchange rate applied in the payment order was erroneous. In the alternative, Y argued that (i) the arbitration agreement was invalid pursuant to Article V(1)(a) NYC, (ii) the arbitrators had decided on a claim which did not fall under the arbitration agreement, constituting a breach of Article V(1)(c) NYC, and (iii) the arbitrators had failed to rule upon one of Y’s claims, in violation of Articles V(1)(b) and V(2)(b) NYC. The Pretore dismissed the objection, confirming the exchange rate which had already been used in a previous payment order issued by the Ufficio di Escuzione di Lugano. It further held that as Y had failed to question the validity of the arbitration agreement during the arbitration proceedings, it could not now raise the objection in enforcement proceedings. Lastly, the Pretore found that Y’s other arguments pertained to the merits and were thus outside its jurisdiction. Y appealed the decision. The Camera di Esecuzione e Fallimenti del Tribunale d’Appello (Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal) upheld the appeal, granting Y’s objection to the payment order and thus refusing enforcement of the award. The Tribunale d’Appello noted that the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards was governed by bilateral or multilateral conventions, or in absence of such conventions, by the provisions of the Federal Act on Private International Law. In the present case, the Tribunale d’Appello found that the NYC was applicable because (i) the parties had not challenged its applicability, (ii) the seat of the arbitration was located abroad, and (iii) there was no bilateral convention between Switzerland and Russia for the enforcement of foreign awards. Pursuant to Article III NYC, which provides that awards shall be enforced in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon (Swiss law in the present case), the Tribunale d’Appello held that X’s request for dismissal of the objection should be rejected since it had failed to demonstrate that the exchange rate was accurate, as required by Swiss law. The Tribunale d’Appello did not address the other arguments raised by the parties.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1296&opac_view=6
Spain / 14 January 2003 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Glencore Grain Limited v. Sociedad Ibérica de Molturación S.A. (SIMSA) / ATS 229/2003
Date 14 January 2003
Parties Glencore Grain Limited v. Sociedad Ibérica de Molturación S.A. (SIMSA)
Case number ATS 229/2003
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4037&opac_view=6
Switzerland / 16 September 2002 / Switzerland, Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino / 14.2002.00042
Date 16 September 2002
Case number 14.2002.00042
Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b)
Summary The parties entered into an agreement which provided for arbitration in Moscow under the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. A dispute arose and X obtained a favorable award. Y sought to have the award set aside in Russia, arguing that it had been unable to present its case and that the subject-matter of the dispute was not capable of settlement by arbitration. Both the District Court and the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed Y’s claims. X applied to the Ufficio di esecuzione di Lugano (Debt Collection Office of Lugano) in Switzerland and obtained a payment order, to which Y raised an objection (opposizione). X requested dismissal of the objection (rigetto definitivo) before the Segretaria Assessore della Pretura di Lugano (Assessor Secretary of the First Instance Court of Lugano), which granted dismissal. The Segretariat Assessore found that X had complied with the requirements of Article IV NYC and rejected Y’s claims by referring to the decisions of the Russian courts in the annulment proceedings. Y appealed, arguing that its claim that its right to present its case had been violated should have been assessed on the basis of Articles V(1)(d) and V(2)(b) NYC and not the Russian decisions, and that the arbitral tribunal had dealt with the issue of the termination of the agreement although it did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, which, according to Y, was limited to disputes relating to the performance of the agreement. The Camera di Esecuzione e Fallimenti del Tribunale d’Appello (Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal, thereby dismissing Y’s objection to the payment order and allowing the enforcement of the award to proceed. It first noted that the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards was governed by bilateral or multilateral conventions, or in absence of such conventions, by the Federal Act on Private International Law. It then held that the NYC was applicable as the seat of the arbitration was located abroad and there was no bilateral convention in force between Switzerland and Russia concerning the enforcement of foreign awards. Based on this, the Tribunale d’Appello found that X had complied with the requirements of Article IV(1) NYC by providing certified copies and translations of the arbitration agreement and the award. It held that though the violation of the right to be heard is governed by the provisions of Article V(1)(b) NYC, it relied on the rulings of the Russian courts regarding this issue. It rejected Y’s other claims under Articles V(1)(d) and V(2)(b) NYC, holding that Y had failed to produce any evidence in support of its claims. Finally, with respect to the scope of the arbitration agreement (Article V(1)(c) NYC), the Tribunale d’Appello stated that it was not bound by the rulings of the arbitral tribunal and of the Russian courts and concluded that the parties had agreed to submit all disputes arising out of the agreement (whether related to its performance or its termination) to the same arbitral tribunal.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1297&opac_view=6
United States / 04 June 2002 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit / Ernesto Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT / 01-30694
Date 04 June 2002
Parties Ernesto Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT
Case number 01-30694
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V | I(3) | II(1) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e)
Source online: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ (official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
Summary The Appellant, a Philippine national, entered into a Philippines Overseas Employment Administration contract with Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Inc. (“Stolt”), a Liberian corporation. The employment contract contained an arbitration agreement. The Appellant was injured while working and sued Stolt in Louisiana state court, asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Stolt removed the case to the Federal District Court, arguing that the Appellant was bound by the arbitration agreement in the employment contract and that the arbitration agreement was governed by the NYC. The Appellant filed a motion to remand the case to the state court and Stolt filed a motion to compel arbitration under Section 206 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The district court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to compel arbitration, dismissing the suit. The Appellant appealed, arguing that his case did not fall under the NYC and Section 1 of the FAA. He also relied on Articles V(1)(c) NYC and V(1)(e) NYC. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal. The Court held that all of the jurisdictional prerequisites had been met for the arbitration agreement to be enforced: there was an agreement in writing; the agreement provided for arbitration in the territory of a signatory of the NYC; the agreement arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial in nature; at least one of the parties to the agreement was not an American citizen; and the commercial relationship had a reasonable connection to one or more foreign states. The Court then noted that employment contracts for seamen fell under Article II(1) NYC and Section 202 of the FAA. The Court reasoned that according to Article I(3) NYC and Section 201 of the FAA, which follows the text of the NYC, the United States, when adopting the NYC, agreed to apply the NYC to differences arising out of legal relationship that were considered commercial under the national law of the United States. The Court concluded that an employment contract is “commercial” and thus falls under the scope of the NYC. Lastly, the Court noted that Article V(1) NYC can only be applied after an award had been made, and thus could not be invoked by the Appellant in the present case.
II / 2. ANALYSIS (II) / A. The obligation to recognize an agreement in writing / §12
I / 2. ANALYSIS (I) / ARTICLE I(3) / a. Meaning of “legal relationships considered as commercial under the national law of the State making such declaration” / §86
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1118&opac_view=6
Argentina / 11 April 2002 / Argentina, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial, Sala B (National Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters, Division B) / Forever Living Products Argentina SRL et al. v. Juan Beas et al. / E. 19.137/01
Court Argentina, Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial, Sala B (National Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters, Division B)
Date 11 April 2002
Parties Forever Living Products Argentina SRL et al. v. Juan Beas et al.
Case number E. 19.137/01
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4568&opac_view=6
Germany / 06 December 2001 / Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart / 1 Sch 12/01
Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
Date 06 December 2001
Case number 1 Sch 12/01
Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(1)(c)
Source DIS
Summary The Parties concluded a sales contract providing for the application of Italian law and the arbitration of all disputes by a sole arbitrator under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The Seller ceded the contract to its parent company. A dispute arose when the parent company terminated the contract. The Seller obtained a favorable ICC award, with the seat of the arbitration in Italy but hearings in Switzerland. The Seller then sought enforcement in Germany before the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Stuttgart. The Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart granted enforcement, finding that the request satisfied the requirements of Article IV NYC, and that there were no grounds for non-enforcement under Article V NYC. The Oberlandesgericht held that the dispute was not outside of scope of the arbitration clause merely because contract has been ceded to parent company and that the termination of the contract had no effect on the validity of the arbitration clause for the purposes of Article V(1)(c) NYC. It noted the Parties had entered into a further agreement to arbitrate by signing ICC Terms of Reference. Enforcement of the arbitral award must not be denied on this ground because the award granted the Claimant more than it claimed. It held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction even if hearings were held in Switzerland and not in Italy, since this was not a ground for non-enforcement listed in Article V(1) NYC. It found that there was no violation of due process justifying non-enforcement under Article V(2)(b). Contrary to the Buyer's contention, the Tribunal was not required to explicitly address all arguments of the losing party in its reasons. Nor was there a violation of due process because the arbitrator deemed certain facts to be irrelevant. The length of the proceedings could not justify non-enforcement under Article V(1)(c) NYC because the Buyer did not argue that time limit set in arbitration clause had been exceeded.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=259&opac_view=6
Spain / 13 November 2001 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Centrotex S.A. v. Agencia Gestora de Negocios S.A. (AGENSA) / ATS 2115/2001
Date 13 November 2001
Parties Centrotex S.A. v. Agencia Gestora de Negocios S.A. (AGENSA)
Case number ATS 2115/2001
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4043&opac_view=6
Spain / 02 October 2001 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Fortum Engineering OY-o Ltd v. Global Steel Wire S.A. / ATS 1173/2001
Date 02 October 2001
Parties Fortum Engineering OY-o Ltd v. Global Steel Wire S.A.
Case number ATS 1173/2001
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4044&opac_view=6
China / 11 September 2001 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Aoetker Germany v. Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd. / [2000] Jiao Ta Zi No.11 ([2000]交他字第11号)
Parties Aoetker Germany v. Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd.
Case number [2000] Jiao Ta Zi No.11 ([2000]交他字第11号)
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(c)
Guide and Study on China’s Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials, pp. 133-142 (People's Court Press, Vol. 1, 2002)
Summary On 20 July 1995, Aoetker Germany (Aoetker) and Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd. (Sinotrans) entered into a charter-party via their respective agents. The charter-party referred to two arbitration clauses: one provided for arbitration in London with English law as the applicable law and the other provided for arbitration in either London or New York. On 22 July 1995, Sinotrans, through its agent, notified Aoetker of its cancellation of the charter-party and then entered into another charter-party with another company. Aoetker filed for arbitration in London. Receiving no reply from Sinotrans, Aoetker proceeded to appoint a sole-arbitrator to hear the dispute, who then rendered an award in favour of Aoetker on 23 January 1998. Aoetker applied for recognition and enforcement of the award before the Wuhan Maritime Court on 21 July 1998. The Wuhan Maritime Court opined that the award should not recognised or enforced according to Article V(1)(c) NYC and 269 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. In particular, the court opined that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties because, among other things, even if Sinotrans had agreed to the charter-party it did not agree to the arbitration clause, which was an independent agreement. In addition, the court opined that Sinotrans did not authorise its agent to consent to the arbitration clause and the behaviour of the agent did not give rise to apparent-agency and thus should not be responsible for it. The Wuhan Maritime Court reported its opinion to the Wuhan Higher People’s Court for review. The Wuhan Higher People’s Court confirmed the opinion of the lower court. The Wuhan Higher People’s Court reported its opinion to the Supreme People’s Court (最高人民法院) for review in accordance with the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Adjudication of the Relevant Issues About Foreign-related Arbitration and Foreign Arbitral Matters by the People's Court. The Supreme People’s Court opined that the award should be recognised and enforced according to Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the NYC. In particular, the court opined that there were no grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement in the present application.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=769&opac_view=6
Spain / 16 May 2001 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Schröder Vogel GmbH & Co. v. Intercot S.A. / ATS 2190/2001
Date 16 May 2001
Parties Schröder Vogel GmbH & Co. v. Intercot S.A.
Case number ATS 2190/2001
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(c)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4046&opac_view=6
Spain / 20 February 2001 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Consmaremma-Consorzio tra produttori agricoli-Soc. Coop. a r.l. v. Hermanos Escot Madrid S.A. / ATS 758/2001
Date 20 February 2001
Parties Consmaremma-Consorzio tra produttori agricoli-Soc. Coop. a r.l. v. Hermanos Escot Madrid S.A.
Case number ATS 758/2001
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4049&opac_view=6
Spain / 31 July 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / E. Schubert & Sohn GmbH & Co. v. Golden Foods S.A. / ATS 2485/2000
Date 31 July 2000
Parties E. Schubert & Sohn GmbH & Co. v. Golden Foods S.A.
Case number ATS 2485/2000
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(1) | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4052&opac_view=6
Spain / 28 March 2000 / Spain, Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) / Kil Management A/S v. J. García Carrión S.A. / ATS 238/2000
Date 28 March 2000
Parties Kil Management A/S v. J. García Carrión S.A.
Case number ATS 238/2000
Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2)
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4066&opac_view=6
Germany / 30 September 1999 / Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Bremen / (2) Sch 04/99
Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Bremen
Date 30 September 1999
Case number (2) Sch 04/99
Applicable NYC Provisions V | IV | V(2)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(b)
Summary The parties were both shareholders in a Turkish limited liability company whose bylaws contained an arbitration agreement. The Applicant initiated arbitration proceedings at the Arbitral Commission of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, which issued an award in its favor. Shortly before the issuance of the award, the Respondent had filed an action at the local court of Istanbul requesting the court to declare that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Both the local court and the Court of Cassation dismissed the Respondent’s action. The Respondent also sought annulment of the arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had rendered its decision without awaiting the outcome of the decision of the state courts, which was granted by the Turkish Court of Cassation. The Applicant then initiated new arbitration proceedings requesting that the Respondent be ordered to make payment in accordance with the first award. The newly constituted arbitral tribunal issued a second award in the Applicant’s favor. The Respondent’s application to annul the second award was rejected by the Turkish Court of Cassation. The Applicant sought enforcement of the second award in Germany, which the Respondent opposed arguing that: (i) it was not given an opportunity to present its case under Article V(1)(b) NYC; (ii) that pursuant to Article V(1)(c) NYC the dispute was not covered under the arbitration agreement as the arbitration agreement applied only to disputes involving the company Atlanata Tuerkiye Ltd. Sireketi and the arbitral tribunal had misinterpreted the arbitration agreement; (iii) that under Article V(1)(d) NYC, the arbitral proceedings did not comply with the provisions of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure which was the law of the country in which the arbitration is seated ; and (iv) that the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award violated German public policy (Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Bremen granted leave to enforce the second arbitral award. It found that the formal requirements under Article IV NYC had been met. It then addressed the grounds for refusal of enforcement that the Respondent had raised. The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht held that the Respondent´s right to present its case under Article V(1)(b) NYC had not been violated since it had been given the opportunity to present, and indeed had presented, its defenses in both the first and second arbitral proceedings. To the extent that the arbitral tribunal had disregarded any defenses raised by the Respondent, this could merely be relevant under the aspect of a potential violation of the right to be heard (under Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Oberlandesgericht also rejected the Respondent’s defense under Article V(1)(c) NYC. It held that disputes regarding the present company were covered under the arbitration agreement because the company was not a different enterprise but had merely changed its name. In addition, it rejected the Respondent’s argument that the Turkish courts had misinterpreted the arbitration agreement holding that under the principle of automatic recognition of foreign courts the German courts were bound by the decision of the Turkish courts, which had conclusively confirmed the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. With respect to the Respondent´s allegations under Article V(1)(d) NYC that the arbitral tribunal did not decide in accordance with the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht stated that by agreeing on the Arbitral Commission of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the parties also agreed on the application of its Arbitration Rules and that the arbitral tribunal had conducted its proceedings in compliance with such rules. The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht further dismissed the Respondent´s argument that the enforcement of the award violated German public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC because the arbitral tribunal had allegedly not considered certain arguments and evidence submitted by the Respondent. It stated that a violation of due process could only have occurred in the case where the relevant evidence could have influenced the outcome of the proceedings. Moreover, it clarified that German international public policy was violated only when the “decision of the foreign arbitral tribunal was rendered in proceedings that were to such an extent at odds with basic principles of German procedural law, that in the German legal system the decision cannot be deemed to have been rendered in proper legal proceedings because of a grave defect that affects the principles of public and economic life”. It further noted that, since international arbitral tribunals are composed of arbitrators with different domestic legal backgrounds, the requirements regarding the extent to which an arbitral award discusses the respective parties’ arguments as well as regarding the overall reasoning of the decision were lower and only needed to meet the more lenient requirements of German international public policy. Moreover, the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht also rejected the Respondent’s argument that the arbitral tribunal had wrongly concluded that the Applicant’s claims were not time-barred. It reasoned that it could only assess whether an arbitral award had correctly applied the substantive law if it were determinative of whether the recognition of the arbitral award violated public policy. However, it found, that there was no ground to assume a violation of public policy in the present circumstances since that would mean that the application of the relevant Turkish substantive law was in such stark contrast to the fundamental principles of German law and the perceptions of justice contained therein that it would be intolerable under domestic standards.
V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / a. The public policy exception under the Convention / §9
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1332&opac_view=6
Germany / 24 June 1999 / Oberlandesgericht Schleswig / 16 SchH 01/99
Court Germany, Oberlandesgericht Schleswig
Date 24 June 1999
Case number 16 SchH 01/99
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(a)
Summary The Parties entered into a five-year contract containing a clause for arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The Defendant terminated the contract and the Claimant, a successor to a State enterprise that had signed the arbitration agreement, obtained a favorable award from a sole ICC arbitrator. In the course of the arbitration, the ICC had dismissed the Defendant's challenge to the sole arbitrator for bias. The Claimant sought to enforce the award in Germany. The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Schleswig granted enforcement. It held that there were no grounds for non-enforcement under Article V(1)(a) NYC, as it was bound by the arbitrator's finding on legal and factual grounds that the Claimant was a successor to the signatory of the agreement. Nor were there grounds for non-enforcement under Article V(1)(c) NYC, as it was equally bound by the arbitrator's finding that the Claimant's claim for payment was covered by the arbitration agreement, and this argument could not be raised in enforcement proceedings. According to the Court, there had been no violation of due process justifying non-enforcement under Article V(1)(b) NYC or bias justifying non-enforcement under Article V(1)(d) NYC. Nor was there any violation of public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC. It reasoned that the recognition of foreign awards is subject to a less stringent regime than domestic awards because there is a distinction between international and domestic public policy. The recognition of foreign arbitral award is to be denied only in instances of obvious and grave defects that affect fundamental legal principles.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=244&opac_view=6
United States / 07 December 1998 / United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California / Ministry of Defense & Support for the Armed Forces of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc. / 98–1165–B
Court United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Date 07 December 1998
Parties Ministry of Defense & Support for the Armed Forces of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc.
Case number 98–1165–B
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c)
Source online: PACER
Summary The Ministry of Defense and Support of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and Cubic Defense Systems, Inc. (“Cubic”) entered into two contracts for the sale and service of an Air Combat Maneuvering Range for use by the Iranian Air Force. The contracts provided for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”) in Zurich, Switzerland. A dispute arose and Iran initiated arbitration proceedings and obtained a favorable award. Iran filed a petition to have the award confirmed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, under the NYC. Cubic cross-moved to vacate the award. Cubic opposed the application on three primary grounds: (i) the award should be denied enforcement pursuant to Article V(1)(c) NYC because the tribunal decided issues not submitted to it by the parties and issued a ruling based upon legal theories not contemplated by the parties; (ii) Cubic was unable to present its case pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC because the legal theories articulated in the award were not previously presented to it and because the tribunal bifurcated the proceedings; (iii) the award violated the requirement that an arbitration agreement must be in writing pursuant to Article V(1)(a) NYC, because the legal theories applied by the tribunal were based on oral amendments to the arbitration clauses and the Terms of Reference. The District Court granted Iran’s petition for confirmation of the award and denied Cubic’s cross-motion to vacate the award. First, it held that the award did not violate Article V(1)(c) because the Terms of Reference granted the tribunal leeway in resolving the dispute between the parties. The Court further held that under the NYC, a court had to determine “whether the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement, not whether the award exceeds the scope of the parties’ pleadings”. Second, it held that Article V(1)(a) NYC did not present the District Court with grounds for refusing to confirm the award because the legal theories applied by the tribunal to resolve contract disputes were not oral amendments to the arbitration agreement. Third, it held that there was no due process violation that could justify non-enforcement pursuant to Article V(1)(b), as Cubic had been able to “present its case”.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1124&opac_view=6
Germany / 30 July 1998 / Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) / 6 Sch 3/98
Court Germany, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg)
Date 30 July 1998
Case number 6 Sch 3/98
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d)
Summary The Claimant sought enforcement of an award rendered in London. The Defendant maintained that there is no valid arbitration clause within the meaning of Article II NYC, that the award was vitiated by lack of oral hearing and the granting of post-award interest that had not been claimed. The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Hamburg granted enforcement, holding that parties validly concluded agreement by exchange of telefaxes. It reasoned that there were no grounds for refusal under Article V(1)(b) NYC, as the Defendant had been duly informed of the proceedings and the arbitral tribunal had otherwise complied with the requirements of due process. The Court reasoned that arbitral rules provide that decision could be rendered without oral hearing, so there were no grounds for refusal under Article V(1)(d) NYC. An arbitral tribunal can, at its discretion, award interest and not exceed its authority in the sense of Article V(1)(c) NYC. The Court held that an award could be refused enforcement under Article V(2)(b) only where arbitration is vitiated by a grave fault that affects fundamentals of social and economic life.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=240&opac_view=6
France / 02 April 1998 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Compagnie française d'études et de construction Technip (Technip) v. Entreprise nationale des engrais et des produits phytosanitaires (Asmidal) / 97/6929
Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris)
Date 02 April 1998
Parties Compagnie française d'études et de construction Technip (Technip) v. Entreprise nationale des engrais et des produits phytosanitaires (Asmidal)
Case number 97/6929
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1)
Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d’appel de Paris
Summary An ICC award was rendered in Zurich on 8 July 1996 in favor of an Algerian Company (ASMIDAL). In an order issued on 6 January 1997, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, the losing party (Technip) argued that the enforcement order should be overturned pursuant to Article 1502 of the Code of Civil procedure given that (i) the arbitral tribunal had wrongly upheld jurisdiction, (ii) the arbitral tribunal had not properly been constituted, (iii) the arbitral tribunal had not complied with the mandate conferred upon it, (iv) due process had been violated, and (v) recognition and enforcement was contrary to international public policy. In response, ASMIDAL claimed that only the provisions of the NYC should be applied. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) confirmed the enforcement order and dismissed the action. It first reasoned that the procedure pertaining to the enforcement of the award in France is subject to the conditions set forth by both the NYC, ratified by France and Switzerland, and French rules on enforcement of awards. It added that the control of the regularity of an award by French Courts in order to allow its integration in French legal order may be based on either the NYC or French law (notably, Articles 1498 and 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure); while noting that pursuant to Article VII NYC, the provisions of French law which are more favorable to the enforcement of the award must prevail. It then dismissed each claim for refusing enforcement of the award, after noting that the provisions of French law invoked (Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure) are similar to that of the NYC. In this respect, the Cour d'appel de Paris held that (i) Article V(1)(a) NYC and Article 1502 1° (on whether the arbitral tribunal ruled without an arbitration agreement or on the basis of an arbitration agreement which was null and void) address similar situations, (ii) Article V(1)(b) NYC and Article 1502 4° (violation of due process) have the same scope, except that the latter refers to the principles of French law in an international context, (iii) Article V(1)(c) NYC and Article 1502 3° (as to the obligation of the arbitral tribunal to comply with the mandate conferred upon it) have the same scope, and (iv) Article 1502 includes the same provisions as Article V(1)(d) NYC (regarding the constitution of the arbitral tribunal). Lastly, it ruled that Article 1502 5° (as to the violation of international public policy) is in "perfect harmony" with Article V(2)(b) NYC.
V(2) / V(2)(b) / 2. ANALYSIS (V(2)(b)) / b. Ex officio review, burden of proof and standard of proof / §58
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=153&opac_view=6
United States / 03 July 1996 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit / M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co. / 95-1390
Court United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Date 03 July 1996
Parties M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co.
Case number 95-1390
Applicable NYC Provisions V | VI | V(1)(c) | V(1)(e)
Summary Erwin Behr GmbH & Co. (“Behr”), a German entity, entered into a contract with M & C Corporation (“M & C”), a Michigan corporation, pursuant to which M & C was to serve as the exclusive sales agent for Behr in the United States and Canada, for the sale of wood interior panels for luxury automobiles. A dispute arose and arbitration was commenced in London under the LCIA, pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in the contract. A sole arbitrator ruled in favor of M&C. M&C sought confirmation of the award in the United States under the NYC. Behr filed a motion to vacate the award. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan entered judgments confirming the award. Behr appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It concluded that the motion to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to Articles V(1)(e) NYC and VI NYC may be heard only in the courts of the country where the arbitration occurred or in the courts of any country whose procedural law was invoked in the arbitration agreements. It therefore rejected Behr’s argument that because the parties agreed to apply Michigan law to resolve their disputes, the U.S. Federal Courts were the competent authority under the NYC to vacate the award. The Court of Appeals rejected Behr’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded its authority and found that there was no ground under Article V(1)(c) NYC to refuse the enforcement of the award. In particular, it considered that the award of damages was contemplated by the parties and fell within the arbitrator’s terms of reference. The Court rejected Behr’s argument that the award should not be recognized on the ground that the arbitrator allegedly showed disregard of the law or miscalculation of the facts, considering that Article V NYC listed the exclusive grounds justifying refusal to recognize an arbitral award and those did not include miscalculations of fact or manifest disregard of the law.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1140&opac_view=6
Singapore / 29 September 1995 / Singapore, High Court / Re An Arbitration Between Hainan Machinery Import and Export Corp and Donald & McArthy Pte Ltd / [1995] SGHC 232, Originating Summons No 1056 of 1994
Court Singapore, High Court
Date 29 September 1995
Parties Re An Arbitration Between Hainan Machinery Import and Export Corp and Donald & McArthy Pte Ltd
Case number [1995] SGHC 232, Originating Summons No 1056 of 1994
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b)
http://www.singaporelaw.sg
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4167&opac_view=6
United States / 29 May 1995 / United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia / Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. Hammermills, Inc. / 90-0169
Date 29 May 1995
Parties Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. Hammermills, Inc.
Case number 90-0169
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c)
Summary Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee (“CBG”), a Delaware corporation, and Hammermills, a dissolved corporation under the laws of Missouri, which was subsequently dissolved, entered into a sale and purchase agreement. A dispute arose and arbitration was commenced pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in the contract which provided for arbitration under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). A sole arbitrator dismissed CBG’s claim against Hammermills and quantified Hammermills’ “normal legal costs”. CBG filed a motion to vacate the award arguing that: (i) it was denied due process within the meaning of Article V(1)(b) NYC because it did not receive adequate notice of the arbitrator’s intention to quantify legal fees against it and had no opportunity to be heard on the issue; and (ii) the arbitrator’s addition of the fee assessment subsequent to the approval of the award by the ICC Court violated the ICC Rules within the meaning of Article V(1)(c) NYC. Hammermills filed a motion for summary judgment of its motion seeking to enforce the award. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied CBG’s application to vacate the award and granted summary judgment for Hammermills’ motion for confirmation and enforcement of the award. The District Court found that CBG was accorded sufficient notice that the assessment of legal fees was at issue in the arbitration, thus, there had been no violation of due process within the meaning of Article V(1)(b) NYC. The District Court held that CBG had not established a defense to enforcement under Article V(1)(d) NYC, basing its conclusion on expert evidence submitted by both parties regarding procedures under the ICC Rules.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1150&opac_view=6
France / 12 February 1993 / France, Cour d'appel de Paris / Société Unichips Finanziaria SpA and Société Unichips International BV v. Consorts Gesnouin / 92-14017
Date 12 February 1993
Parties Société Unichips Finanziaria SpA and Société Unichips International BV v. Consorts Gesnouin
Case number 92-14017
Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1)
Summary On 25 February 1988, two individuals sold their shares in various companies of the Gesnouin Group to an Italian company (Unichips). A dispute arose and the two individuals commenced arbitration against Unichips. An award was rendered on 18 and 27 December 1990 in their favor. On 1 July 1991, the Swiss Federal Court rejected Unichips' action to set aside the award. In an order issued on 19 February 1992, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. Appealing this decision, Unichips argued that (i) the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it (Article 1502 3° of the Code of Civil Procedure), (ii) due process was violated (Article 1502 4°), and (iii) the award was contrary to international public policy (Article 1502 5°). The two individuals contented that French courts were bound by the decision of the Swiss Federal Court and thus could not control the international validity of the award. The Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) upheld the enforcement order and dismissed the appeal. It first reasoned that the enforcement of an international award is subject to enforcement procedures in accordance with the conditions set forth in the NYC and under French law. It then held that the decision of the Swiss Federal Court dismissing the action to set aside the award does not deprive French courts from controlling the international validity of an award in order to allow its integration in the French legal order, whether this control is made with regard to the NYC or French law. It thus declared the appeal of the enforcement order admissible, while noting that pursuant to Article VII NYC, if the requirements for the recognition and enforcement of an award under French law are less strict than that of the NYC, the former shall prevail. The Cour d'appel de Paris then dismissed Unichips' arguments based on Article V NYC and Article 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As to the violation of due process, it noted that Article V(1)(b) NYC and Article 1502 4° of the Code of Civil Procedure have the same purpose and are similar in their content and scope. It noted further, regarding the violation of international public policy, that the provisions of Article V(2)(b) and Article 1502 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure are identical.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=135&opac_view=6
Finland / 09 September 1992 / Finland, Supreme Court / Mr. Reijo Harnos and Mr. Lauri Silanterä/estate of Mr. Tauno Silanterä / S91/1064
Court Finland, Supreme Court
Date 09 September 1992
Parties Mr. Reijo Harnos and Mr. Lauri Silanterä/estate of Mr. Tauno Silanterä
Case number S91/1064
Source www.finlex.fi
Summary Tauno Silanterä had purchased diamonds from Reijo Harnos pursuant to three Sales Agreements, which included non-disclosure provisions, and arbitration agreements referring disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Hamburg, West Germany. A dispute arose following the death of Tauno Silanterä, when his son, Lauri Silanterä, sought to avoid the contracts in the District Court of Helsinki, seeking interim measures and claiming that Reijo Harnos had not entered into the agreements in good faith. The District Court granted interim measures against Reijo Harnos, but the main claim was later rejected. Reijo Harnos commenced an arbitration against Lauri Silanterä claiming damages on the grounds of breach of the non-disclosure agreement and harm caused by the interim measures. An award was rendered on 22 July 1990 in West Germany in favor of Reijo Harnos, who sought enforcement in Finland. Lauri Silanterä objected to the enforcement of the award on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the tribunal was limited to the disputes arising out of the Sales Agreements entered into between Reijo Harnos and his father Tauno Silanterä. He argued that the issues regarding damages arising from the interim measures and harm to Reijo Harnos’ reputation did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clauses contained in the Sales Agreements, and that the dispute was not between the parties to those arbitration clauses. Turun ja Porin lääninhallitus (State Provincial Office of Turku and Pori) held that the award should be enforced in Finland, because the arbitral tribunal had assumed jurisdiction over the disputed issues and because Lauri Silanterä had not provided any evidence that the enforcement should be rejected pursuant to Article V NYC. Upon appeal by Lauri Silanterä, Turun hovioikeus (Turku Court of Appeals) rejected the action for enforcement under Article V(1)(c) NYC, reasoning that the claimed damages for the harm caused by the interim measures did not fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Reijo Harnos appealed. Korkein oikeus (Supreme Court of Finland) overruled the decision by reasoning that the party founding their objection on Article V(1)(c) NYC needs to prove that the award governs an issue outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, which it concluded was not the case in the dispute in question.
Link to the record http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1562&opac_view=6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (151 - 180 / 182) Per page : 25 50 100 Display all