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 case concerned the sale of allegedly contaminated mace flowers by a Dutch company to a German company.
I. The Court held that reference to general terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause in an order confirmation signed by one party does not amount to an 'agreement in writing' for purposes of Article II of the New York Convention. Since reference to the terms and conditions was made for the first time in the order confirmation, signature from the other party (i.e., the Claimant) would have been required as well.
II. The Court further held that the arbitration clause could not be enforced pursuant to the more-favorable-right provision in Article VII of the Convention either.
The Court found that the requirements of Section 1031 of the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) were not met.
- While the confirmation order constituted a document transmitted by one party to the other for purposes of Section 1031(2) of the ZPO which refers to an arbitration clause in accordance with Section 1031(3) of the ZPO, the Court found that such reference did not validly incorporate the arbitration clause into the contract.
- The Court determined the question of whether the clause was validly incorporated into the contract according to substantive law, i.e., German law including the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Since the contract concerned the sale of goods between parties with their respective seats in Germany and the Netherlands, the Court considered the CISG generally applicable. Relying on Article 8 of the CISG, the Court found that the arbitration clause had not been validly incorporated.
The Court further held that the arbitration clause would also be invalid under the conflict of law provisions of German law. Notably, the Court held that pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (EGBGB) the law applicable to the arbitration agreement should be determined on the basis of (and in analogy to) Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention. Applying Article V(1)(a) of the Convention would render Dutch law including the CISG applicable, according to which, as the Court had already determined, the arbitration clause was not validly incorporated into the contract.
Bundesgerichtshof, 26 November 2020 – I ZR 245/19
(Not indicated v. P. V. & Z.)
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 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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Israel 10. District Court, Tel Aviv, 17 February 2013 and Supreme Court of Israel, 13 February 2014
US 741. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 15 April 2011
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.
Germany 142. Federal Court of Justice of Germany, 25 January 2011
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
Germany 140. Federal Court of Justice of Germany, 8 June 2010
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
Netherlands 33. Rechtbank, Rotterdam, 29 July 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 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.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
UK 71. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 29 April 2005 and Court of Appeal, Civil Division, 9 September 2005
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.
Germany 73. Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, Hamburg, 24 January 2003
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.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
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.
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.
Germany 67. Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht, 13 June 2002
The court discusses the application of the Convention to awards rendered by permanent arbitral bodies (as opposed to ad hoc awards).
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 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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
US 343. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 31 May 2000 and United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 16 March 2001
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.
The court discusses issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
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.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
US 341. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 26 April 2000
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 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.
The court discusses issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
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.
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.
US 340. United States District Court, District of Connecticut, 14 March 2000
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 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 which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
US 330. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 8 December 1999
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
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 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.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses measures in aid of arbitration (e.g., anti-suit injunction). This topic also includes the issue of the relationship between the Convention and the recognition of a foreign judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement.
US 324. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 23 August 1999
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 these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.
UK 57. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 28 July 1999
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 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 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 court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses whether related court proceedings may absorb (by vis atractiva) arbitration proceedings.
Switzerland 31. Cour de Justice, Canton Geneva, 11 December 1997
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.
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.
US 257. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 August 1997
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 issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
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 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.
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.
Greece 13. Areios Pagos, Plenary Session, Decision No. 8 of 1997
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 second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
Italy 145. Corte di Cassazione, 2 March 1996
Hong Kong 10. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 6 April 1995
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 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 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.
Switzerland 29. Tribunal Fédéral, 21 March 1995
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 status of an arbitration agreement in a contract that was amended or renewed.
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.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Switzerland 27. Tribunal Fédéral, 16 January 1995
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
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.
Germany 47. Oberlandesgericht, Hamm, 15 November 1994
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.
Switzerland 26. Obergericht, Basel-Land, 5 July 1994
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.
Italy 131. Corte di Cassazione, 28 October 1993
The court discusses arbitration agreements contained in a sales and purchase confirmation and whether a tacit acceptance thereof is sufficient.
Spain 30. Tribunal Supremo, 18 February 1993
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 status of an arbitration agreement in a contract that was amended or renewed.
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.
Germany 44. Oberlandesgericht, Cologne, 16 December 1992
The court discusses arbitration agreements contained in a sales and purchase confirmation and whether a tacit acceptance thereof is sufficient.
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.
Germany 42. Bundesgerichtshof, 3 December 1992
Italy 142. Corte di Cassazione, 11 July 1992
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 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 second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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 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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Public policy:The court discusses the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.
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.
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.
US 134. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 14 April 1992
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 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 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.
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.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
US 128. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 11 October 1991
The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
US 119. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 15 January 1991
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 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.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
Italy 119. Corte di Appello, Milan, 4 October 1991
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 identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
Italy 116. Corte di Cassazione, 25 January 1991
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 these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.
Italy 113. Corte di Appello, Genoa, 3 February 1990
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 these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Italy 132. Corte di Appello, Bari, 30 November 1989
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
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 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.
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.
Switzerland 20. Appellationsgericht, Basel-Stadt, 27 February 1989
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.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Italy 97. Corte di Cassazione, 19 November 1987
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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 what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
France 12. Cour d'Appel, Paris, 20 January 1987
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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.
Italy 95. Corte di Cassazione, 29 October 1986
The court discusses the form in which the arbitration agreement is expressed: short form arbitration clause, reference to rules of institution, etc.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
Italy 93. Corte di Cassazione, 15 March 1986
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.
Spain 12. Tribunal Supremo, 30 January 1986
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Switzerland 14. Tribunal Fédéral, Second Civil Court, 5 November 1985
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
Italy 101. Tribunale, Naples, 22 February 1985
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.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
Spain 13. Corte de Primera Instancia, Barcelona, 31 July 1984 and Audiencia Territorial, Barcelona, 11 April 1986
Italy 88. Corte di Cassazione, 30 July 1984
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Italy 80. Corte di Cassazione, 21 February 1984
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 impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
Italy 78. Corte di Cassazione, 19 January 1984
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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 what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Public policy:The court discusses the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.
Switzerland 8. Tribunal Fédéral, 7 February 1984
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses issues specific to bills of lading and charterparties, such as whether the subsequent holder of the bill of lading is bound by the arbitration agreement therein and whether the arbitration clause in the charterparty is incorporated into the bill of lading.
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.
Spain 11. Tribunal Supremo, 22 December 1983
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.
Morocco 1. Court of Appeal, Casablanca, 21 June 1983
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
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 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.
Italy 60. Corte di Cassazione, First Chamber, 17 March 1982
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
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.
Italy 58. Corte di Cassazione, Plenary Session, 11 February 1982
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
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.
Italy 55. Corte di Appello, Milan, 13 October 1981
The court discusses the application of the Convention to awards rendered by permanent arbitral bodies (as opposed to ad hoc awards).
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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 what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Public policy:The court discusses the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.
Italy 54. Corte di Appello, Ancona, 8 June 1981
The court discusses the application of the Convention to awards rendered by permanent arbitral bodies (as opposed to ad hoc awards).
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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 requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
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.
Italy 52. Corte di Appello, Brescia, 27 December 1980
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 requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Italy 44. Corte di Appello, Venice, 26 April 1980
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the conditions under which an award that has merged into a court judgment in the country of origin can still be enforced as an award under the Convention, and whether a decision granting recognition under the Convention can be enforced as a foreign court judgment in a third country.
Italy 38. Corte Di Cassazione, Plenary Session, 11 September 1979
The court discusses issues specific to bills of lading and charterparties, such as whether the subsequent holder of the bill of lading is bound by the arbitration agreement therein and whether the arbitration clause in the charterparty is incorporated into the bill of lading.
Italy 48. Tribunale, Naples, 12 May 1978
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.
Italy 46. Corte di Cassazione, First Chamber, 7 October 1980 and Corte Di Appello, Bari, 28 November 1977
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
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.
Italy 29. Corte di Appello, Florence, 8 October 1977
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 second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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 the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
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 cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Public policy:The court discusses the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
Italy 26. Corte di Cassazione, Plenary Session, 25 January 1977
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 issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.
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.
Italy 24. Corte di Cassazione, Plenary Session, 8 November 1976
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 these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
Italy 17. Corte di Cassazione, Plenary session, 25 May 1976
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 these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.
Italy 13. Corte di Cassazione, Plenary Session, 8 April 1975
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 issues specific to bills of lading and charterparties, such as whether the subsequent holder of the bill of lading is bound by the arbitration agreement therein and whether the arbitration clause in the charterparty is incorporated into the bill of lading.
Italy 21. Corte Di Appello, Naples, 20 February 1975
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 relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
Italy 7. Corte di Appello, Turin, 30 March 1973
The court discusses these Articles, which require a specific, separate signature for (domestic) arbitration agreements.
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.