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.
The Supreme Court denied the appeal filed against the decision of the Luxembourg Court of Appeal, which had granted exequatur of an SCC award. In respect of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court considered that the lower court had correctly applied the public policy reservation of Art. V(2)(b). In the context of exequatur proceedings, the review of the court is limited to the international concept of public policy. The party opposing enforcement argued that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly gone beyond that concept by applying the "manifest and determining fraud" (fraude manifeste et déterminante) standard. The Supreme Court found that, in fact, the lower court had concluded that no fraud at all had been proved.
Cour de Cassation, 11 February 2021, no. 25/2021
(Republic X v. Moldavian Company A Group et al.)
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 of Appeal denied the request to stay the enforcement proceedings because of a criminal investigation allegedly pending following a complaint filed by a manager of the appellant for acts of intimidation committed on behalf of the respondent. The Court held that the investigation would have no impact in any case on exequatur, since it was not one of the grounds for refusal provided for in the New York Convention. The Court then dismissed all the objections raised by the appellant, and granted enforcement.
Cour d’appel, 27 February 2020, No. 25/20 - VIII - Exequatur
(SOC1.) sàrl v. SOC2.))
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 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.
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 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 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.
Luxembourg No. 10, Parties not indicated, Cour d'appel, No. 98/18 – VIII – Exequatur, 5 July 2018
Cour d' Appel, 5 July 2018
A et al. v. SOC2
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.
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 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.
Cour de Cassation, 28 June 2018
(Parties not indicated)
In this chapter of the DIAG Human v. Czech Republic saga, the Supreme Court affirmed the
2017 decision of the Court of Appeal, which in turn had affirmed the 2011 first instance
decision recognizing a Czech ad hoc award. While the party seeking enforcement had not
revealed to the 2011 court that applications for review arbitration were pending against the
award in the Czech Republic, this argument had become moot by 2017, as the applications
had been denied in 2014. Hence, enforcement could not be denied on grounds of public
policy because of the procedural fraud allegedly committed by the applicant. The Supreme
Court also found that it could not review the holding of the Court of Appeal that the award
was binding under Czech law, because the interpretation and application of foreign law were
questions of fact which pertained to the merits and fell outside the cassation review.
Cour de Cassation, 28 June 2018
(Parties not indicated)
In this chapter of the DIAG Human v. Czech Republic saga, the Supreme Court affirmed the
2017 decision of the Court of Appeal, which in turn had affirmed the 2011 first instance
decision recognizing a Czech ad hoc award. While the party seeking enforcement had not
revealed to the 2011 court that applications for review arbitration were pending against the
award in the Czech Republic, this argument had become moot by 2017, as the applications
had been denied in 2014. Hence, enforcement could not be denied on grounds of public
policy because of the procedural fraud allegedly committed by the applicant. The Supreme
Court also found that it could not review the holding of the Court of Appeal that the award
was binding under Czech law, because the interpretation and application of foreign law were
questions of fact which pertained to the merits and fell outside the cassation review.
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.
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.
Luxembourg No. 9, Parties not indicated, Cour d'appel, No. 62/18 – VIII – Exequatur, 17 May 2018
Cour d’Appel, 17 May 2018
SOC1 SA v. A
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
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 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.
Luxembourg 6. Czech Republic v. Company 1, Cour d’Appel, Luxembourg, 27 April 2017
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
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.
Luxembourg 7. PEMEX – Exploracion y Produccion v. Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de R.L. de C.V., Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, Case No. 59/17, 27 April 2017
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Luxembourg 5. Bolivian Republic of Venezuela v. Company 1 INC., Cour d’Appel, Luxembourg, 25 June 2015
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.
Luxembourg No. 8, Parties not indicated, Cour de Cassation, No. 18/15, 12 March 2015
Cour de Cassation, 12 March 2015
SOC1 v. SOC2 et al.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
Luxembourg 4. Cour d' Appel, 18 December 2013
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.
Luxembourg 3. Cour d’Appel, 26 July 2005
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.
Luxembourg 2. Cour d'Appel, 28 January 1999
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 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 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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
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 meaning of an award having been “suspended” in the country of origin, including when the award has been suspended by operation of law rather than by a court decision.
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.
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 examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Luxembourg 1. Cour Superieure de Justice, 24 November 1993
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 which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses the admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
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 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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement 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.