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 Court of Appeals granted recognition and enforcement of an ICC award rendered in Switzerland. The claimant met the requirements of Art. IV of the 1958 New York Convention by supplying a copy of the award certified by an Albanian notary public, together with an Albanian translation from the original English made by a certified translator. There were no grounds for refusal under Albanian law; no grounds for refusal under Art. V(1) of the Convention were either claimed or proved, and no grounds under Art. V(2) appeared to exist.
Gjykata e Apelit, Tirana, 28 February 2017, Registry No. 33, Decision No. 43
(Hobas Rohre GmbH v. C&S C onstruction Energy Ltd.)
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 overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court of Appeals granted recognition and enforcement of a Danish ad hoc award, finding that there were no grounds for refusal under both the Albanian Code of Civil Procedure and Art. V of the 1958 New York Convention. The Court noted in particular that the parties had included an arbitration clause in their contract and that no violation of due process was either claimed or apparent: the arbitrators appeared to have guaranteed due process of law within the meaning of the European Human Rights Convention.
Gjykata e Apelit, Tirana, 24 November 2016
(A/S Global Risk Management Ltd. v. Trading Petrol & Drilling JSC)
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision below, which had held that the Albanian court lacked jurisdiction because of the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties. Albanian parties may agree to refer disputes to international arbitration – here, ICC arbitration in Paris. The arbitration clause was valid under the applicable 1958 New York Convention and 1961 European Convention. The claimant/appellant did not argue that the clause was invalid or incapable of being performed. Its argument that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause was without merit: as noted by the court below, the claim – payment under the contract and related damages – clearly concerned the contract’s performance.
. Gjykata e Lartë e Republikës së Shqipërisë, 1 June 2016
(“2T” Sh.p.k. v. “Iren Acqua e Gas” (IAG), Albanian Branch)
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court, which had declined jurisdiction over a dispute covered by the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. Since the parties had concluded a valid arbitration clause for arbitration in Italy, the case should be heard in arbitration pursuant to Art. II of the 1958 New York Convention, which applies to international arbitrations seated outside Albania.
Gjykata e Lartë e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Civil Panel, 3 June 2015
(“Ital Trade” Ltd. v. “Trapani Charter” Ltd)
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 Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court, which had declined jurisdiction over a dispute covered by the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. Albanian parties to a contract subject to Albanian law may submit their disputes to international arbitration, that is, to arbitration outside Albania. The 1958 New York Convention solely applies in respect of such arbitrations; the grounds on which the claimant relied to argue that the clause was invalid concerned arbitrations with seat in Albania. Here, the arbitration clause was valid and the dispute should be referred to arbitration in accordance with Art. II of the Convention. The claimant’s claim that the contract was invalid was irrelevant, as arbitration clauses are autonomous from the contract in which they are contained.
Gjykata e Lartë e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Civil Panel, 8 January 2013 (“C.A.E.” Ltd. v. “Energji” Ltd.)
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.
The Joint Panels of the Supreme Court issued a “unifying decision” stating the proper procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards to be followed by the Albanian courts of appeal. The Court held: (1) the recognition procedure consists of two stages; at the first stage, the courts only examine whether the formal conditions set by the 1958 New York Convention and the Albanian Code of Civil Procedure are met. If there are defects and these defects are not cured in the course of the proceeding, the court dismisses the application without prejudice; it does not issue a final decision rejecting the application. If the conditions are met, the court proceeds to examine the substantive grounds for denying recognition and enforcement. (2) The New York Convention implicitly requires that the debtor under the award be summoned to the recognition proceeding, since it lays the burden of proving the substantive grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement on that party. (3) The court of appeal must ascertain on its own initiative whether the applicant has supplied the original written arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof, together with its application, as required by the Convention (though not by the CCP). (4) The court must examine the grounds under Art. V(2) of the Convention ex officio. The Supreme Court then turned to the case at hand. It reversed the decision below, which had denied recognition and enforcement of an ICC award rendered in Switzerland, and remanded the case for a retrial. The court below correctly summoned the award debtor to the recognition proceeding, but erred in finding that the failure of the claimants to comply with the obligation under Albanian law to pay the tax on judicial acts (a percentage of the value of the award) was a ground for refusing their application with prejudice. Also, the court below failed to ascertain whether the claimants supplied the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof, as required by Art. IV(1)(b) of the New York Convention.
Gjykata e Lartë e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Joint Panels, 1 June 2011
(“I.C.M.A.” s.r.l. et al. v. Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Albania)
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 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 overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court granted enforcement of an ICC award rendered in France, finding that the claimant supplied the necessary documents, the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction and there had been no violation of procedural rules or due process in the arbitration.
Gjykata e Apelit, Tirana, 31 March 2009
(Turkish Limited Liability Company v. General Road Directorate, Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Telecommunications of the Republic of Albania)
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 overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The Court granted enforcement of an ICC award recording a settlement agreement, finding that the claimant supplied the necessary documents, the sole arbitrator had jurisdiction and there had been no violation of procedural rules or due process in the arbitration.
Gjykata e Apelit, Tirana, 8 November 2007
(Italian Joint-stock company, et al. v. Republic of Albania)
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced 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 the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.