The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
Oberster Gerichtshof, 8 September 2022, 3 Ob 80/22v
(S* SE (in fact: Strabag SE) v. State of Libya)
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.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts that had denied recognition and enforcement of an award of the International Court of Arbitration at the Belorussian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Court referred to earlier decisions in which it had held that while it was in principle admissible for two arbitrators to exchange bilateral written communications, this should not result in the de facto exclusion of the third arbitrator from the deliberations, since the participation of all arbitrators was an essential requirement of arbitration.
Oberster Gerichtshof, 19 November 2019
(R v. P GmbH)
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.
Oberster Gerichtshof, 29 August 2019, (C SA v. E SA, et al.), 6 Ob 142/19d
The Supreme Court held that an ICC arbitration pending in Brazil constituted the main proceeding providing the basis for the interim injunction sought by the claimant under the Austrian Enforcement Act (EO). It was irrelevant that the some of the defendants, managing directors of the other defendants, were not parties to the Brazilian arbitration, since the Court had held in an earlier decision that an interim injunction securing claims against a company could also be directed against its managing director, even if the applicant had no separate claim against the managing director.
Oberster Gerichtshof, 29 August 2019
(C SA v. E SA, et al.)
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
Austria No. 35. D v. C, Oberster Gerichtshof, Case No. 3Ob153/18y, 19 December 2018
Oberster Gerichtshof, 19 December 2018
D v. C Limited
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
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.
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.
Austria No. 34. C v. F GmbH et al., Oberster Gerichtshof, 3Ob10/17t, 7 June 2017
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.
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.
Austria 33. K Ltd v. S GmbH, Oberster Gerichtshof, 29 March 2017, 3 Ob 20/17p
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
Austria 32. T GesmbH v. O, Inc., USA, Oberster Gerichtshof, 1 March 2017, 5 Ob 72/16y
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Austria 31. F GmbH v. Q Ltd, Oberster Gerichtshof, 19 October 2016, 7 Nc 18/16f
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Austria 30. K Ltd v. (1) S GmbH and (2) H., Oberster Gerichtshof, 3Ob208/15g, 17 February 2016
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
Austria 29. Kinve Solar Power Co., Ltd v. Sun Value GmbH et al., Landesgericht, Ried im Innkreis, 24 June 2015
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
Austria 27. Oberster Gerichtshof, 18 February 2015
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Austria 28. Kinve Solar Power Co., Ltd v. Sun Value GmbH et al., Landesgericht, Ried Im Innkreis, Case No. 6 R 80/14b, 27 August 2014
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Austria 26. Oberster Gerichtshof, 16 April 2013
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.
Austria 25. Oberster Gerichtshof, 18 April 2012
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.
Austria 24. Oberster Gerichtshof, 24 August 2011
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
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.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
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.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
Austria 23. Oberster Gerichtshof, 1 September 2010
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Austria 22. Oberster Gerichtshof, 22 July 2009
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.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses the application of the 1961 European Convention together with the New York Convention, and the relationship between the two treaties.
Austria 21. Oberster Gerichtshof, 30 March 2009
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Austria 20. Oberster Gerichtshof, 3 September 2008
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Austria 19. Oberster Gerichtshof, 26 August 2008
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses whether related court proceedings may absorb (by vis atractiva) arbitration proceedings.
Austria 18. Oberster Gerichtshof, 23 October 2007
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses issues relating to the moment when the documents that are required for seeking recognition and enforcement must be supplied, and whether any defect can be cured later in the enforcement proceeding.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
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.
Austria 16. Oberster Gerichtshof, 26 April 2006
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
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 how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Austria 17. Oberster Gerichtshof, 26 April 2006
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Austria 15. Oberster Gerichtshof, 24 August 2005
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Austria 14. Oberster Gerichtshof, 31 March 2005
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.
Austria 13. Oberster Gerichtshof, 26 January 2005
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
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.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, 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.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses the application of the 1961 European Convention together with the New York Convention, and the relationship between the two treaties.
Austria 12. Oberster Gerichtshof, 19 February 2004
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Austria 11. Oberster Gerichtshof, 30 November 1994
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Austria 10. Oberster Gerichtshof, 25 June 1992
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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.
Austria 9. Oberster Gerichtshof, 22 May 1991
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Austria 8. Oberster Gerichtshof, 9 September 1987, 3 Ob. 80/87
The court discusses the form in which the arbitration agreement is expressed: short form arbitration clause, reference to rules of institution, etc.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Austria 7. Oberster Gerichtshof, 11 May 1983
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.
Austria 4. Oberster Gerichtshof, 1 February 1980
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.
Austria 6. Oberster Gerichtshof, 21 February 1978
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the form in which the arbitration agreement is expressed: short form arbitration clause, reference to rules of institution, etc.
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses arbitration agreements contained in a sales and purchase confirmation and whether a tacit acceptance thereof is sufficient.
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 general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
The court discusses the relationship between the New York Convention, the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923, and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927.
Austria 5. Oberster Gerichtshof, 2 May 1972
The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
The court discusses what more recent means of communication are also covered by the “exchange of letters or telegrams” alternative: telefax, email, e-commerce, etc.
Austria 2. Oberster Gerichtshof, 17 November 1971
The court discusses what more recent means of communication are also covered by the “exchange of letters or telegrams” alternative: telefax, email, e-commerce, etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Austria 3. Oberster Gerichtshof, 11 June 1969
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Austria 1. Oberster Gerichtshof, 17 November 1965
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses whether the Convention may be applied retroactively and, if so, as of when: e.g., with the conclusion of the arbitration agreement, the commencement of arbitration, the rendition of the award.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses issues relating to the moment when the documents that are required for seeking recognition and enforcement must be supplied, and whether any defect can be cured later in the enforcement proceeding.
The court discusses the relationship between the New York Convention, the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923, and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927.