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.
In its decision of 20 June 2016, in case no. 173/2016, the Court of Cassation held that foreign arbitral
awards shall be dealt with as national awards as regards their enforcement. The national courts shall follow
the procedures for the enforcement of domestic awards provided by the national legislation if such
procedures are less complicated than the procedures for the enforcement foreign arbitral awards. This
principle, however, shall apply only in respect of the procedures for executing the award; it shall not apply
to any other conditions or rules that may be imposed by the legislation with regard to the form of the
arbitral award or similar matters. The Court held specifically that submission of the documents indicated in
Art. IV of the New York Convention shall be considered sufficient evidence – unless the contrary is proved –
for the validity and enforceability of the award. In the case at issue, the applicant had supplied all
documents necessary to enforce the award, which had been rendered by an ICC tribunal in Paris. The Court
of Cassation then found that the appeal filed by the present appellant before the French Cour de Cassation
against the denial of its request to set the award aside did not affect the award or suspend its enforcement.
The appealed Qatari decision in this case had not applied this principle and was therefore mistaken.
In its decision of 20 June 2016, in case no. 173/2016, the Court of Cassation held that foreign arbitral
awards shall be dealt with as national awards as regards their enforcement. The national courts shall follow
the procedures for the enforcement of domestic awards provided by the national legislation if such
procedures are less complicated than the procedures for the enforcement foreign arbitral awards. This
principle, however, shall apply only in respect of the procedures for executing the award; it shall not apply
to any other conditions or rules that may be imposed by the legislation with regard to the form of the
arbitral award or similar matters. The Court held specifically that submission of the documents indicated in
Art. IV of the New York Convention shall be considered sufficient evidence – unless the contrary is proved –
for the validity and enforceability of the award. In the case at issue, the applicant had supplied all
documents necessary to enforce the award, which had been rendered by an ICC tribunal in Paris. The Court
of Cassation then found that the appeal filed by the present appellant before the French Cour de Cassation
against the denial of its request to set the award aside did not affect the award or suspend its enforcement.
The appealed Qatari decision in this case had not applied this principle and was therefore mistaken.
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.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
In its decision of 2 February 2016, in case no. 358/2015, the Court of Cassation of Qatar held (1) that
Qatar’s accession to the New York Convention means that Qatar committed to recognize the authenticity
of an award rendered outside its territory and to enforce it in accordance with the applicable Qatari rules;
and (2) that according to the Convention, arbitral awards can be challenged only in the legal system of the
State in which they are rendered, whose courts shall have the exclusive and sole jurisdiction to decide on
the NULLity of the award. The courts of the other States shall adhere to the provisions of the Convention and
recognize and enforce the award regardless of its validity or NULLity, and without reviewing its merits. They
are only entitled not to enforce the award to the extent that they are permitted to do so under the
Convention or their national law. The Court held that the impugned decision before it, which had adhered
to this principle, was correct.
In its decision of 2 February 2016, in case no. 358/2015, the Court of Cassation of Qatar held (1) that
Qatar’s accession to the New York Convention means that Qatar committed to recognize the authenticity
of an award rendered outside its territory and to enforce it in accordance with the applicable Qatari rules;
and (2) that according to the Convention, arbitral awards can be challenged only in the legal system of the
State in which they are rendered, whose courts shall have the exclusive and sole jurisdiction to decide on
the NULLity of the award. The courts of the other States shall adhere to the provisions of the Convention and
recognize and enforce the award regardless of its validity or NULLity, and without reviewing its merits. They
are only entitled not to enforce the award to the extent that they are permitted to do so under the
Convention or their national law. The Court held that the impugned decision before it, which had adhered
to this principle, was correct.
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 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.
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.
Qatar 3. Main contractor v. Subcontractor, Court of First Instance, Civil and Commercial Matters, Exequatur Circuit, Case No. 704/2/2015, 21 September 2015
Qatar 2. Company X v. Shareholder A in Company Y et al., Court of First Instance, Civil and Commercial Matters, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 3379/Civil/2014, 28 May 2015
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.
Qatar 1. Supreme Court of Cassation, 25 March 2014
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.