- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- US 1002
US 1002
US No. 2020-9, OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 19-20011, 6 April 2020
US 1002
The Court of Appeals explained that as a court of secondary jurisdiction, it had a limited scope of review and could only deny enforcement on the grounds listed in Art. V of the 1958 New York Convention, which were to be construed narrowly and did not include a review of the merits. On the facts of the case, it found that there was a valid agreement for SCC arbitration in an amendment to the original contract (which had contained a different arbitration clause) because the person who signed the amendment had the necessary capacity; and that there had been no violation of due process because the SCC arbitration had complied with the basic safeguards which constituted due process in the United States. Further, confirmation of the award would not violate the public policy interest in international comity by disrespecting the decision of the Ukrainian courts, which had held that the contractual amendment was invalid; there would be no such violation because the Court, as a court of secondary jurisdiction under the New York Convention, would not apply US law in another country or resolve whether the award would be enforced in Ukraine or satisfied with assets located in Ukraine. Comity concerns were also counterbalanced by the “emphatic” US policy favoring international arbitration.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.