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.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 13 July 2023, Nos. 21-5072 & 21-5081
(Baker Hughes Services International, LLC v. Joshi Technologies International, Inc.)
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 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.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 12 July 2023, 22-825-cv
(Olin Holdings Limited v. State of Libya)
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 29 June 2023, 22-cv-7503 (PKC); 21-cv-6704 (PKC)
(Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A., v. Republic of Haiti, Bureau de Monétisation des Programmes d'aide au Développement)
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
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.
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.
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.
Rechtbank, Rotterdam, 5 December 2022, Case no. C/10/640294 / KG RK 22-659
(Crescent Gas Corporation Limited et al. v. National Iranian Oil Company)
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 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.
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.
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.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 3 October 2022, No. 20-4248
(Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A.)
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Supreme Court of Georgia, 20 January 2022, a- 5322-sh-127-2020
(“F-I-“ Ltd v. A.S.P.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.
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.
The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the fact that an award is rendered against a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement is not a ground for resisting enforcement of the award vis-à-vis the non-signatory under Section 48(1)(a) (based on Article V(1)(a) of the Convention) and Section 48(1)(c) (based on Article V(1)(c) of the Convention) of the Indian Arbitration Act. The Court further ruled that the pre-requisites for enforcement of a foreign award under Section 47 of the Indian Arbitration Act (based on Article IV of the Convention) are procedural in nature, the object being that the enforcing court must first be
satisfied that it is indeed a foreign award and that it is enforceable against persons who are bound by the award. The Court ruled that Section 47 (and Article IV of the Convention) do not require the submission of substantive evidence to prove that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound by a foreign award. Similarly, the “proof” referred in the chapeau of Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act refers to “established on the basis of the
record of the arbitral tribunal”.
Supreme Court of India, 10 August 2021
(Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.)
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 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 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.
The Indian Supreme Court affirmed the recognition and enforcement of an ICC award rendered in Zurich between two Indian companies. The Court answered in the affirmative the “interesting” question whether two Indian companies can choose a foreign seat of arbitration, and whether the ensuing award can be said to be a “foreign award” under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to which the New York Convention applies. The Court rejected the argument that such foreign designation was contrary to public policy, stressing that party autonomy and freedom of contract must be upheld.
Supreme Court of India, 20 April 2021, Civil Appeal No. 1647 of 2021
(PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited)
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 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 District Court ruled that the tribunal’s failure to render the award within the six-month period as stipulated under the CIETAC arbitration rules did not fall within the scope of Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention (arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties), as the tribunal had received permission from the President of the Arbitration Court of the CEITAC to extend the deadline for rendering the award. The District Court further ruled that a delay in rendering the arbitral award does not constitute a
violation of the United States’ public policy for the purposes of Article V(2)(b) of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) must be construed very narrowly to encompass only those circumstances where enforcement would violate the most basic notions of morality and justice. The Court further rejected respondent’s contention that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding attorney’s fees and costs to claimants, noting that while the parties’ contracts appeared ambiguous as to whether attorney’s fees could be awarded by a tribunal, pursuant to the CIETAC Rules, the tribunal had the power to award attorney’s fees.
United States District Court, Northern District of New York, 3 August 2021
(Chongqing Loncin Engine Parts Co. Ltd. & Anr v. New Monarch Machine Tool, Inc.)
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 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 District Court granted the petitioner's motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitral award on the respondent's failure to respond to the petition for confirmation despite completion of service.
Prior to confirming the award, the Court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action as the award was a foreign arbitration award pertaining to commercial matters and was rendered in a signatory State to the New York Convention. The Court further ascertained that it had personal jurisdiction over the Republic of Guinea and that service had been properly completed by the petitioner. The Court observed that enforcing courts have little discretion in refusing or deferring enforcement of foreign arbitral award and that they may do so only if the grounds explicitly set forth in Article V of the Convention are satisfied. The respondent bears the burden of proving the application of any of the grounds for refusal to enforce an award under Article V(1) of the Convention, which was not satisfied in this case as the respondent defaulted in the proceedings. On its own review of the grounds under Articles V(1) and V(2) of the Convention, the Court concluded that none of grounds for refusal of enforcement existed in this case.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 14 June 2021
(Compagnie Sahélienne d'Entreprise v. Republic of Guinea)
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
The District Court rejected the respondent's objections to the recognition and enforcement of the two awards before it, finding that the respondent had not raised any grounds under Article V of the New York Convention. The respondent had raised three arguments to oppose the recognition and enforcement of the awards, namely (i) that the arbitrator lacked impartiality and had favoured the petitioner; (ii) that respondent did not have the financial ability to pay the awards; and (iii) that the petitioner had made certain admission in settlement discussions between the parties following the issuance of the award, which admissions, according to respondent, were sufficient reason to refuse enforcement of the awards. The Court dismissed the first objection on the basis that the allegations were unsubstantiated. As to the second objection, the Court ruled that financial inability of the award debtor is not a ground for refusal to enforce an award under the New York Convention. In relation to the third objection, the Court found that the parties' settlement discussions were not relevant to the question of whether the awards should be confirmed.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 5 May 2021
(d'Amico Dry D.A.C v. Tremond Metals Corp.)
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.
A first instance court granted enforcement of an award rendered under the auspices of the Riga International Commercial Arbitration Court. The beneficial owners of the defendant Calianson sought to file a cassation appeal before the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court against the enforcement decision, on the ground that enforcement would violate their rights and legitimate interests, as it would affect the balance of interest vis-à- the beneficial owner and controlling person of the applicant Lindrex. The Court deemed the appeal inadmissible, finding that the appellants had not participated in the arbitration, and that their interest in the outcome of the case alone did not entitle them to appeal the enforcement decision.
Arbitrazh Court of the Ural Circuit, 25 May 2021, Case No. А60-73262/2019
(Lindrex Company Inc. v. Calianson Management Limited)
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 Supreme Court addressed the issue of what is the proper method for enforcing foreign arbitral awards which have been certified by a competent court in the seat of the arbitration, i.e., whether by seeking recognition and enforcement of the award or by seeking recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment certifying the award. It clarified that the proper process is provided under section 29a of the Israeli Arbitration Law, 5728-1968 and in the New York Convention; it is only in rare and exceptional cases that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award may be pursued by seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment certifying it, through the procedure set out in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, 5718-1958.
The Supreme Court also explained the phrase “becomes binding” in Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention means that it is no longer possible to file an appeal from the award in the arbitration proceeding, as distinct from an appeal before a court. The Court further confirmed that (i) once the arbitral award is set aside at the seat of the arbitration, it should not be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention, except in exceptional cases (for example, the decision to set it aside was made by a judicial forum that is not autonomous and independent); and (ii) certification of the arbitral award in the seat of the arbitration does not automatically lead to recognition and enforcement by virtue of the New York Convention. However, rejection of claims pertaining to the validity of the arbitral award in a motion to certify or set it aside could give rise to cause of action estoppel that bars identical claims from being raised in the opposition to enforcement and certification of the arbitral award in Israel.
Supreme Court of Israel, 21 April 2021
(Luminati Networks Ltd. V. B.I. Science Ltd.)
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.
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.
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 issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
Roche initiated an action against Guarino and another defendant, Iutum Services Corp., seeking confirmation of an award. rendered in accordance with the rules of the Arbitration Center of the Caracas Chamber. The Southern District of Florida on 10 April 2020 confirmed the award under the New York Convention. Guarino appeals the district court's confirmation of the award against him individually. Guarino asserts the district court's confirmation of the award should be reversed because (1) the agreement to arbitrate was not in writing, (2) he did not receive sufficient notice of the arbitration, and (3) recognition of the arbitral award is contrary to public policy of the United States. The Court of Appeals found that no reversible error had been shown, and affirmed the lower court's decision. In respect of the objection of public policy, the Court held that the public policy defense under the New York Convention is very narrow and applies only when confirmation would violate the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice. The objection that Venezuelan law is offensive to notions of Florida public policy as it does not comply with Florida's corporate veil-piercing law failed: the contract was subject to Venezuelan law and should be construed according to Venezuelan law.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 15 December 2020, No. 20-11420 Non-Argument Calendar
(Gerardo Jose Guarino v. Productos Roche S.A.)
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.
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.
In its first decision, the District Court denied the motion of Ukraine to file a supplemental briefing in support of its attempt to introduce a third ground for opposing confirmation of a French award rendered in favor of Tatneft, holding that Ukraine did not validly explain why it had failed to raise this defense when replying to the application to confirm the award. Further, this third ground, which was based on Art. V(1)(c) of the Convention, could not be deemed to be related to the Art. V(1)(d) ground that Ukraine had raised, as these defenses were predicated on different subsections of Art. V. By the second decision, the Court granted confirmation of the award, finding that the fact that the president of the arbitral tribunal had failed to disclose that he had been appointed by the law firm for the plaintiff as arbitrator in an unrelated arbitration before the award was rendered, in violation of the disclosure provisions in the UNCITRAL Rules, under which the arbitration had been conducted, did not constitute a ground for refusal of confirmation under Art. V(1)(d).
United States District Court, District of Columbia,
13 May 2020 and 24 August 2020
(PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine)
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.
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 Appeals explained that as a court of secondary jurisdiction, it had a limited scope of review and could only deny enforcement on the grounds listed in Art. V of the 1958 New York Convention, which were to be construed narrowly and did not include a review of the merits. On the facts of the case, it found that there was a valid agreement for SCC arbitration in an amendment to the original contract (which had contained a different arbitration clause) because the person who signed the amendment had the necessary capacity; and that there had been no violation of due process because the SCC arbitration had complied with the basic safeguards which constituted due process in the United States. Further, confirmation of the award would not violate the public policy interest in international comity by disrespecting the decision of the Ukrainian courts, which had held that the contractual amendment was invalid; there would be no such violation because the Court, as a court of secondary jurisdiction under the New York Convention, would not apply US law in another country or resolve whether the award would be enforced in Ukraine or satisfied with assets located in Ukraine. Comity concerns were also counterbalanced by the “emphatic” US policy favoring international arbitration.
US No. 2020-9, OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 19-20011, 6 April 2020
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 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.
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 High Court dismissed the application to set aside an order granting enforcement of an SCC award. The Court found that the agreement for SCC arbitration in the contract between the parties was valid under the law of Sweden, which was the law applicable to determine the issue of the agreement’s validity because the choice of a neutral forum was a strong indication of an implied choice for Swedish law in this respect. The choice of Sweden as the seat of the arbitration also gave rise to a reasonable inference that the parties knew they were agreeing to the application of the Swedish Arbitration Act, which stated that if the parties did not agree on the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, that law was the law of the place of arbitration; this choice also made Swedish law the law with the closest connection to the arbitration. The Court also held that prior court decisions, in Ukraine and Sweden, did not give rise to issue estoppel on the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement, because there was no identity of subject matter in the actions. Further, the defendant was estopped from arguing that it had been deprived of the right to due process in the arbitration, because the curial court of Sweden had already rejected this contention.
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 31 March 2020
(Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation v. PJSC Ukrnafta)
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.
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.
The Court of Appeal granted recognition and enforcement of an award rendered by the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization in Africa of Business Law (OHADA). The Dutch Court held that the argument that the defendant had already paid under the award was not an objection falling within the scope of Art. V of the New York Convention.
Gerechtshof, The Hague, 25 August 2020, Case no. 200.272.114
(Seaquest-Infotel Inc. v. Sociéte Des Telecommunications du Mali S.A.)
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 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.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court (ARGENTINA 6 A and ARGENTINA 6 B, which also found that litigation tax should be paid on exequatur ptoceedings), which had granted partial enforcement of a US award (and its US confirmation decision) after modifying it to comply with the public policy provisions of the Argentinean regime of debt consolidation. Both parties had acknowledged the public policy nature of these provisions; since the claimant had done so by not appealing the decision of the court of appeal, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to review this issue. The Court affirmed the holding of the appellate court that an exequatur court had the power under the Argentinean Code of Civil Procedure to modify an award before enforcing it, in order to bring it in line with Argentinean public policy – here, the debt consolidation regime. The Court relied on Art. VII of the 1958 New York Convention, which allowed the party seeking enforcement of a foreign award to rely on a more favourable domestic law, in the interest of promoting the enforcement of foreign awards. The Supreme Court also rejected the arguments raised by Argentina that enforcement should be denied because the arbitral tribunal (i) held, in violation of Argentinean law on the powers of representation, that a document signed by an unauthorized person interrupted prescription; and (ii) erroneously applied the five-year statute of limitations for prescription under Dutch law rather than the one-year time limit applicable to contracts of reinsurance and retrocession under Argentinean law. Both arguments failed because they were not among the grounds for refusal exhaustively listed in the Convention and because they would imply a review of the merits of the arbitral decision, which the Court stressed was impermissible. (See also ARGENTINA 6 A and ARGENTINA 6 B.)
Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, 24 September 2019
(Deutsche Rückversicherung AG v. Caja Nacional de Ahorro y
Seguro, in liquidation, et al.)
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.
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 examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
The court discusses this general reciprocity clause, which was inserted in the Convention to remedy the absence in the commercial reservation (Art. I(3)) of a federal-state clause allowing Contracting States not to apply the Convention to awards made in a constituent state or province of a Contracting State which was not bound to apply the Convention.
US No. 995. Antoine Savine (nationality not indicated) v. Interactive Brokers, LLC (US), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, 18-cv-1846 (KAD), 5 August 2019
United States District Court, District of Connecticut,
5 August 2019
Antoine Savine v. Interactive Brokers, LLC
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.
US 987. Anatolie Stati, et al. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, No. 18-7047, 19 April 2019
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.
US No. 994. Konoike Construction Co. Ltd. (Japan) v. Ministry of Works, Tanzania, et al. (Tanzania), United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:17-cv-01986, 6 March 2019
United States District Court, District of Columbia,
6 March 2019
Konoike Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Works, Tanzania, et al.
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.
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 rejected all the objections to enforcement of an AAA award, holding, inter alia, that no official authentication of the award by the courts of the place of the arbitration was necessary, since neither the Chilean arbitration law nor the New York Convention set this requirement.
Corte Suprema, First Chamber, 9 July 2019
(Bose Corporation v. MusicWorld Audiovisión Ltda.)
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.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Yargitay, 11th Civil Chamber, 11 June 2019, No. E. 2017/3469 K. 2019/4259
(Parties not indicated)
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 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.
Netherlands Antilles 5. Virginia Huntington Ingalls Incorporated v. Ministry of Defense of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba, Case No. BON201800432, 30 January 2019
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.
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.
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.
Russian Federation 46. Banwell International Limited v. OAO Rosshelf, Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, Case No. A40-117331/18, 16 January 2019
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.
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.
Netherlands 65. Serena Equity Limited v. Fincantieri S.p.A., Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, Case No. 200.219.927/01, 9 October 2018
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 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.
US 963. Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng International, Inc. USA, United States District Court, Central District of California, No. ED CV 17-2127 PA (SHKx), 18 September 2018
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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 980. Pharmaniaga Berhad v. E*Healthonline.com, Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, No. 2:17-cv-02672-MCE-EFB, 7 September 2018
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 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.
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.
US 978. Nanoelectro Research and Production Co. v. Alphysica Inc., United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 17-cv-11378-ADB, 9 August 2018
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.
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.
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 977. Esther Ventura de Rendon v. Viviane Ventura et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 1:17-CV-24380-MORENO/LOUIS, 8 August 2018 and 18 September 2018
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.
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.
US 972. KT Corporation, et al. v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17 Civ. 7859 (LGS), 10 July 2018 and 12 July 2018
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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 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 970. Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco-Terr Distributing, Inc., United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. C18-0277JLR, 21 June 2018
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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.
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 cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
US 969. Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A., et al. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Civil Action No. 17-23996-Civ-Scola, 20 June 2018 and 13 November 2018
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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.
US 968. Liu Luwei et al v. Phyto Tech Corp., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 18-2174-JFW(GJSx), 18 June 2018
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 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.
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 No. 2019-2. CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 Civ. 2581 (RWS), 15 June 2018
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 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 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.
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 967. CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 13 Civ. 2581 (RWS), 15 June 2018
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 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 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.
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 965. Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Roger Leon et al., United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-00102-MOC-DSC, 11 June 2018 and 16 July 2018
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.
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.
US 959. Hardy Exploration & Production (India), Inc. v. Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 16-140 (RC), 7 June 2018
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 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.
US 958. Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Int’l Trade Serv. Co. v. Tiancheng Chempharm, Inc. USA, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Docket No. 17-CV-4130 (JS) (AYS), 30 May 2018
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 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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 950. Rusoro Mining Limited v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Case No. 16-cv-02020 (RJL), 2 March 2018
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 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
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.
US 956. Sladjana Cvoro v. Carnival Corporation, d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 16-21559-CIV-MORENO, 5 April 2018
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 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 955. Anatoli Stati et al. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 14-1638 (ABJ), 23 March 2018
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 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 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.
US 954. Balkan Energy Limited et al. v. Republic of Ghana, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 17-cv-00584 (APM), 22 March 2018
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.
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.
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 953. PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 17-582 (CKK), 19 March 2018
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.
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 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.
US 951. BSH Hausgerate GmbH v. Jak Kamhi, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17 Civ. 5776, 2 March 2018
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 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.
US 948. Kaiser Group International, Inc. et al. v. Nova Hut A.S. et al., United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, Chapter 11, Case No. 00-2263 (MFW) (Jointly Administered), Adv. No. 01-928 (MFW), 8 January 2018
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 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.
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.
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.
Switzerland 51. A Limited v. Republic of Uzbekistan, Bundesgericht, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, 5A 942/2017, 7 September 2018
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.
Chile 9. Klion v. Pesquera Villa Alegre S.A., Corte Suprema de Justicia, No. 41.841-2017, 26 July 2018
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.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
India No. 59. LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzuhou) Co. v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited (formerly Moser Bear Clean Energy Limited), High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, EX. APPL. (OS) 192/2017, 4 July 2018
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.
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.
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.
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.
Colombia No. 14. Innovation Worldwide DMCC v. Carboexco C.I. Ltda., Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber, SC877-2018, 23 March 2018
Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber,
23 March 2018
Innovation Worldwide DMCC v. Carboexco C.I. Ltda
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 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 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 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.
Peru 4. D.P. Trade SA v. Metalyck SAC, Corte Superior de Justicia, Lima, Case No. 352-2017, 5 March 2018
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Russian Federation No. 47. Dredging and Maritime Management SA (Luxembourg) v. AO Injtransstroy (Russian Federation), Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, Case No. A40-176466/17-83-1232, 8 February 2018
Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 8 February 2018
Dredging and Maritime Management SA v. AO Injtransstroy
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 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.
Chile 8. Almendra y Miel S.A., v. Agrícola Comercial e Inversiones El Camino S.A., Corte Suprema de Justicia, No. 82.442-2016, 30 November 2017
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 manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
US 943. TMCO Ltd. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 4:17-cv-00997-KAW, 14 November 2017
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.
US 942. Sharp Corporation et al. v. Hisense USA Corporation et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 17-1648 (JEB), 13 November 2017
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
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.
US 940. OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Civil Action H-09-891, 2 October 2017
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 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 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.
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 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 934. Michael D. Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company, LLC, et al., United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. C17-8RSL, 31 July 2017
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.
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.
US 915. Belize Bank Limited v. Government of Belize, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 16-7083 Consolidated with 16-7089 and 16-7094, 31 March 2017
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 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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 914. Crystallex International v. Venezuela, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 16-0661 (RC), 25 March 2017
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.
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 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 912. Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC et al., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 1 March 2017
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 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.
Colombia No. 13. AAL Group Limited v. Vertical de Aviación SAS, Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber, SC17655-2017, 30 October 2017
Colombia No. 2020-2. AAL Group Limited v. Vertical de Aviación SAS, Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber, SC17655-2017, 30 October 2017
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 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.
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.
Colombia No. 12. Tampico Beverages, Inc. v. Productos Naturales de la Sabana S.A. (Alquería), Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber, SC9909-2017, 12 July 2017
Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber,
12 July 2017
Tampico Beverages, Inc. v. Productos Naturales de la Sabana S.A. (Alquería)
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 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 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.
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.
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 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 apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Russian Federation 43. Public Joint Stock Company Tatneft v. Ukraine, Arbitrazh Court, City of Moscow, 4 July 2017, and Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, Case No. A40-67511/17-29-659, 29 August 2017
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 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.
Brazil No. 49. ASA Bioenergy Holding AG et al. v. Adriano Giannetti Dedini Ometto et al., Superior Tribunal de Justiça, SEC 9.412 - US, 19 April 2017
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.
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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Monaco 2. S.A.M. Monaco Yachting & Technologies v. Swallowfalls Limited, Cour de Révision, 24 March 2017
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.
US 907. Linley Investments, et al. v. Jerry Jamgotchian, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-56437, 14 November 2016
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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
US 883. P43, PDV Sweeny, Inc. (US) et al. v. ConocoPhillips Co., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 September 2015 and United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 7 November 2016
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic 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 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.
US 906. Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Wistron Corporation, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 15-CV-02340 (RA), 3 November 2016
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 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.
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 904. Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Ve Ticaret, A.S. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-CV-4502 (ALC), 30 September 2016
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 901. Africard Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Niger, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 27 September 2016
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.
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 922. Ziad Sakr Fakhri v. Marriot International Hotels, Inc., United States District Court, District of Maryland, Civil No. PJM 14-840, 12 August 2016
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.
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.
US 892. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd v. Lumos LLC, n/k/a Lumos Solar LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, No. 15-1256, 19 July 2016
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 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.
US 879. The Belize Bank Limited v. Government of Belize, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 8 June 2016
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
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.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 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.
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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 875. Research and Development Center “Teploenergetika”, LLC v. EP International, LLC et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, 26 April 2016
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 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 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.
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 885. Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin v. Ashot Yegiazaryan, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 14-9764-R, 17 March 2016
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.
US 870. Emmanuel Navarette v. Silversea Cruises Ltd et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 7 March 2016
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under 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.
US 869. Interdigital Communications, Inc., et al. v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 February 2016
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 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.
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.
US 848. Zurich American Insurance co., as subrogee of Vinmar International, Ltd, et al. v. Team Tankers A.S. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 13cv8404, 30 June 2014 and United States District Court, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 14-4036-cv, 28 January 2016
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
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 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 865. Bayer Cropscience AG et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, Civil Action no. 2:12cv47, 15 January 2016
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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under 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.
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.
Colombia 11. Empresa de Generación Eléctrica del Sur S.A. – Egesur S.A. v. Consorcio Pisco, Corte Suprema de Justicia, 7 September 2016
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
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 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 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 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.
Moldova 4. Landmaschinen Vertrieb GmbH v. SRL “Agrogled”, Supreme Court of Justice, Collegium of Civil, Commercial and Administrative Jurisdiction, 22 June 2016
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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.
Chile 6. Qisheng Resources Limited v. Minera Santa Fe, Corte Suprema, 21 April 2016
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.
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.
Panama 1. amilo Amado Varela v. Miguel Sanchiz Jr. et al., Corte Suprema de Justicia, Case No. 626-14, 3 March 2016
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 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 cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Cyprus 3. Lukoil Mid-East Limited v. Terra Seis Cyprus Limited, District Court of Nicosia, Case No. 123/2015, 18 February 2016
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 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 issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
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 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.
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.
Intermediate People’s Court, Heilongjiang Province, Heihe, 23 December 2015, (2015) Hei Zhong She Wai Shang Cai Zi No. 1, 23
(Krasilnikov Sergei Vitalevich v. Heilongjiang Xinghe Dadao Automobile Trade Co., Ltd.)
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.
Australia 46. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited et al. v. Joseph Isaac Gutnick et al., Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial Court, Case No. CI 2015 05409, 21 December 2015 and 22 December 2015
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.
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.
US 864. Kven OJSC v. Thunderbolt Enterprises, Ltd, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case No. 15-cv-02304-LB, 10 December 2015
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 applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 862. Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. Civil Action No. 14-2014 (JEB), 20 November 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 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 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.
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.
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.
US 859. Intel Capital v. Shan Yi, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 15-mc-50406, 13 November 2015
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 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.
US 854. Intel Capital (Cayman) Corporation v. Angie Hsia et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 15-cv-01287-VC, 16 October 2015
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 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.
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.
US 852. P42, PDV Sweeny, Inc., et al. v. ConocoPhillips Co., et al., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 14-cv-5183 (AJN), 1 September 2015
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 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 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.
US 850. Newco Limited v. The Government of Belize, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. Civil Action No. 08-2010 (RJL), 7 August 2015
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 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.
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.
US 841. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 24 June 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 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 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 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 applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 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.
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 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 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 838. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 May 2015
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 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.
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 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 835. United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 13 March 2015
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 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.
US 834. United States District Court, Northern District of California, 6 March 2015
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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under 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.
US 833. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 24 February 2015
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.
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.
Ukraine 8. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine v. JKX Oil & Gas Plc, Court of Appeals of the City of Kiev, Case No. 22-ц/796/9284/2015, 17 September 2015
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 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.
Russian Federation 39. Brandford LLC v. SL Graphika LLC, Federal Arbitrazh Court of the Volgo-Vyatsky District, Case No. A31-3491/2014, 17 April 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 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.
Netherlands 55 Marvesa AG v. OOO Gamma-Trade, Provisions Judge of the District Court of Rotterdam, Case No. C/10/464089/KG RK 14-2082, 3 April 2015 and 5 August 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 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Brazil 41. Huawei do Brasil Telecomunicações Ltda v. Zune Consultoria de Telecomunicações Ltda, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, 4 March 2015, SEC No. 8.242 - EX
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 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.
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.
Switzerland 48. Club A v. B, Tribunal Fédéral, First Civil Chamber, 26 February 2015
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 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 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.
US 802. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 22 August 2013 and 22 August 2014
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 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.
US 808. United States District Court, District of Minnesota, 31 January 2014 and 5 May 2014
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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.
US 815. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 30 April 2014
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 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 796. United States District Court, Central District of California, 30 July 2012 and United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 29 April 2014
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.
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 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 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 807. United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 27 January 2014 and 10 February 2014
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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 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.
UK 98. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, 22 May 2014
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
UK 97. Privy Council, 13 May 2014
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.
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.
Mauritius 1. Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 March 2014
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.
Ireland 4. High Court of Ireland, 13 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.
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.
Macao 1. A Limitada v. Companhia de B, SA, Tribunal de Segunda Instância da R.A.E.M., Case No. 66/2013, 13 March 2014
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.
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.
Portugal 7. Tribunal da Relação, Porto, 9 September 2013 and Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, 25 February 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.
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.
US 806. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 11 December 2013
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 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 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 interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 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.
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 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.
US 779. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 26 September 2011 and United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 7 August 2013
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.
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 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.
US 800. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 6 June 2013
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 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.
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.
US 791. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 3 June 2013
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 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.
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.
US 799. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1 May 2013
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.
US 787. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 18 March 2013
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic 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 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.
Brazil 34. Superior Tribunal de Justiça, 7 August 2013
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.
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.
Australia 38. Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, 19 April 2013
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 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 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 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Ukraine 5. Sribnyansky District Court, Chernihivska Region, 24 January 2013 and Supreme Court of Ukraine, 12 March 2013
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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
France 54. Cour d'Appel, Paris, 15 January 2013
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.
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.
US 783. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 6 December 2012
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 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.
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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 778. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 24 August 2012
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.
Colombia 8. Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, 19 December 2011 and 3 May 2012
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 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 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 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.
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 cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Germany 158. OOO “M. T.” v. 3-S F. Vertriebs GmbH, Higher Regional Court of Munich, Case No. 34 Sch 3/10, 6 March 2012
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 the admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
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 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.
Philippines 8. Tuna Processing, Inc. v. Philippine Kingford, Inc., Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines, Second Division, G.R. 185582, 29 February 2012
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.
Spain 77. Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Comunidad Valenciana, 10 February 2012
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.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
US 757. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 15 December 2011
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 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.
US 756. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 14 December 2011
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.
US 748. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 3 August 2011
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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 740. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 29 March 2011
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.
US 730. United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division, 31 January 2011
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 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 questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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.
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 727. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 21 January 2011
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.
US 728. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 21 January 2011
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.
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 729. United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Northern Division, 21 January 2011
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Colombia 7. Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, 27 July 2011
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 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 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.
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.
Germany 143. Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, 4 March 2011
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.
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.
Switzerland 44. Bundesgericht, 14 February 2011
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.
Australia 35. Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial and Equity Division, Commercial Court, 28 January 2011 and 3 February 2011 and Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, 22 August 2011
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 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 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 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.
US 725. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 15 December 2010
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 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 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.
Korea No. 10, A et al. v. E Co. Ltd., Central District Court, Seoul, 2009 Gahap 194, 18 November 2010
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 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 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.
Korea 5. Supreme Court, 28 May 2009 and 29 April 2010
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.
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.
Ukraine 1. Court of Appeal, City of Kiev, 17 September 2010 and Supreme Court of Ukraine, 24 November 2010
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 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.
Canada 31. Supreme Court of Canada, 20 May 2010
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
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 Supreme People’s Court disagreed with the proposal of the first instance and appellate courts and instructed them to grant enforcement of an LCIA award rendered in respect of a franchise dispute. The Court explained, contrary to the opinion of the lower courts, that, while the parties had not complied with mandatory provisions of Chinese administrative regulations – which required that foreign companies such as the petitioner establish foreign-funded enterprises in order to engage in the franchising business in PR China, and register them with the competent administrative authorities – this violation did not constitute a violation of public policy within the meaning of Art. V(2)(b) of the 1958 New York Convention. The Court further held that the possible inconsistency between the award and the outcome of a pending court action in respect of a related agreement was not one of the grounds for refusal of enforcement listed in Art. V of the Convention.
Supreme People’s Court, 18 May 2010, [2010] Min Si Ta Zi No. 18
(Tianrui Hotel Investment Co., Ltd v. Hangzhou Yiju Hotel Management Co., Ltd.)
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 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.
Poland 1. Sąd Najwyszy, 6 November 2009
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 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.
US 682. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 8 October 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.
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 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.
US 679. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 28 September 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.
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.
US 678. United States District Court, District of Maryland, 28 August 2009
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 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 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 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 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.
US 668. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 12 May 2009
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.
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 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 666. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 13 April 2009
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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.
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 663. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 27 March 2009
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 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.
US 661. United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 5 February 2009
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
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 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 660. United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 23 January 2009
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the applicability of this requirement under (domestic) US law – that parties must have expressed in the arbitration agreement their consent that judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award –in respect of Convention awards.
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 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.
Russian Federation 25. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 27 August 2009
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.
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.
Italy 180. Corte di Appello, Florence, 11 March 2004 and Corte di Cassazione, First Chamber, 23 July 2009
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.
Italy 181. Corte di Appello, Milan, 29 April 2009
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 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 consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
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.
Germany 128. Oberlandesgericht, Munich, 11 May 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.
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.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
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.
Israel 3. District Court, Jerusalem, 13 January 2009
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 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under 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.
Switzerland 40. Tribunal Fédéral, First Civil Chamber, 9 December 2008
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement 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.
Hong Kong 22. Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 5 December 2008
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.
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.
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 658. United States District Court, District of Delaware, 20 November 2008 and 13 August 2009
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 applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement 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.
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.
US 655. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 16 September 2008
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.
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 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 645. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 19 June 2008
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 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.
US 654. United States District Court, Northern District of California, 23 May 2008
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 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 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 637. United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 6 February 2008
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.
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 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.
British Virgin Islands 1. Court of Appeal, 18 June 2008
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
Guatemala 2. Constitutional Court of Guatemala, 11 March 2008
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.
US 632. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 10 December 2007
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an 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 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 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.
US 630. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 2 November 2007
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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.
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.
US 622. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 25 May 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 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.
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.
Brazil 6. Superior Tribunal de Justiça, 16 May 2007
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.
US 583. United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 5 May 2006
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 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.
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.
US 613. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 16 March 2006
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 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 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
France 38. Cour d'Appel, Paris, First Chamber, 23 March 2006
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.
UK 73. Court of Appeal, Civil Division, 21 February 2006 and 8 March 2006
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 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.
US 557. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 22 November 2005
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 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.
US 548. United States District Court, District of Delaware, 2 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 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 admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
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 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 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 525. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 17 June 2005
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.
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.
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 540. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 May 2005
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
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.
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.
US 539. United States District Court, District of Kansas, 10 May 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 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 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.
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.
US 522. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 12 April 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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement 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.
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.
US 520. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 31 March 2005
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Russian Federation 20. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 29 September 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.
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 meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Russian Federation 19. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 22 September 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.
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.
Germany 88. Court of Appeal, Koblenz, 28 July 2005
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 admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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.
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
Bulgaria 3. Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria, Commercial Collegium, 27 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.
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 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 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 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.
Russian Federation 16. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Northwestern District, 9 December 2004
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 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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
Russian Federation 12. Federal Arbitrazh Court, Moscow District, 8 January 2004
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.
US 507. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 30 November 2004
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
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.
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 499. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 16 August 2004
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.
US 491. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 25 May 2004
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 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 482. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 23 March 2004
The court discusses the availability of discovery in order to prove grounds for refusal of enforcement.
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 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.
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 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.
Canada 18. New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, 28 July 2004
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 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 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.
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.
China PR 4. Supreme People's Court, 5 July 2004
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 applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an 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 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 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.
Italy 168. Corte di Cassazione, First Chamber, 8 April 2004
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.
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.
US 472. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 26 November 2003
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 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.
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.
US 471. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 24 November 2003
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 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.
US 459. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 26 June 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.
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.
US 452. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 4 June 2003
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 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 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.
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 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 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 examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
US 436. United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, 27 March 2003
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.
Italy 171. Corte di Appello, Milan, 5 November 2003
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 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.
Portugal 1. Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, 9 October 2003
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 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 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.
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2. Inkometal AG v. Koksno Hemijski Kombinat d. d. Lukavac, Cantonal Court, Tuzla, Case No. R-72/02, 4 June 2002, Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. Gž-51/02, 31 July 2002, Cantonal Court, Tuzla, Case No. R-185/00, 15 January 2003 and Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. Gž-51/02, 19 May 2003
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.
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
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.
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.
Switzerland 37. Bezirksgericht, Zurich, 14 February 2003 and Obergericht, Zurich, 17 July 2003
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
US 449. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 29 October 2002
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 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.
US 404. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 26 April 2002, 22 July 2002 and 17 April 2003 and United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 18 June 2003
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.
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.
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.
US 400. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 27 March 2002
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 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.
UK 64. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 18 October 2002
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 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.
Germany 66. Oberlandesgericht, Stuttgart, 6 December 2001
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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
US 387. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 4 December 2001
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.
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.
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 357. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 23 March 2001
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 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 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.
US 355. United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 14 March 2001
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 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 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 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 various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Italy 170. Corte di Cassazione, 7 February 2001
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.
Netherlands 26. Rechtbank, Almelo, 19 July 2000
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.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
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.
Italy 158. Corte di Cassazione, 21 January 2000
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 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.
Germany 59. Oberlandesgericht, Brandenburg, 2 September 1999
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 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 the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.
US 288. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 12 August 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 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.
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 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.
UK 53. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 20 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 whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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 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 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 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 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 282. United States District Court, Southern District of California, 7 December 1998
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.
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.
US 280. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2 September 1998
The court discusses whether procedures akin to arbitration fall under the Convention.
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 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 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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
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.
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 examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
US 276. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 22 May 1998
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under 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.
US 294. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 March 1998
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 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 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 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.
Germany 55. Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, Hamburg, 12 March 1998
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.
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 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 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.
US 267. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 8 December 1997
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
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 manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
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 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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
Belgium 10. Cour d'Appel, Brussels, 24 January 1997 and Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels, 25 January 1996
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 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 admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
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 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 consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
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.
Russian Federation 6. Moscow District Court, Civil Department, 24 May 1996
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.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
US 271. United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, 14 February 1996
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 applicability of this requirement under (domestic) US law – that parties must have expressed in the arbitration agreement their consent that judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award –in respect of Convention awards.
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.
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.
Italy 144. Corte di Cassazione, 7 June 1995
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 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 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 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.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
US 197. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 22 March 1995
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
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 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 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.
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.
Hong Kong 8. Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 13 July 1994
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 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
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.
Australia 11. Supreme Court of Queensland, 29 October 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 whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
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 application of the Convention to awards rendered by permanent arbitral bodies (as opposed to ad hoc awards).
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.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses whether related court proceedings may absorb (by vis atractiva) arbitration proceedings.
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 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.
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 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 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 125. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 2 July 1991
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 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 applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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 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 consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
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 114. Corte di Cassazione, 8 August 1990
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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
US 110. United States District Court, District of Delaware, 15 March 1990
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 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.
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.
Bermuda 3. Court of Appeal of Bermuda, 7 July 1989
The court discusses the application of the Convention to awards rendered by permanent arbitral bodies (as opposed to ad hoc awards).
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 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 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 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.
Cayman Islands 2. Grand Court, 1 March 1989
The court discusses the admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under 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.
US 74. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 5 January 1987
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
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.
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 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.
UK 20. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 26 July 1985
The court discusses whether awards rendered by the Iran-US Claims Tribunal fall under 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 burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Netherlands 10. President, Rechtbank, Amsterdam, 12 July 1984
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 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 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 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.
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.
Spain 5. Tribunal Supremo, 10 February 1984
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 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 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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
US 39. United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, 9 June 1981
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 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 admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an 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 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.
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.
The court discusses this general reciprocity clause, which was inserted in the Convention to remedy the absence in the commercial reservation (Art. I(3)) of a federal-state clause allowing Contracting States not to apply the Convention to awards made in a constituent state or province of a Contracting State which was not bound to apply the Convention.
US 24. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 25 September 1978
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 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.
US 16. United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, 15 March 1977
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 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 admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.
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 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.
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 what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
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.
Netherlands 3. President, Rechtbank, The Hague, 26 April 1973
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 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 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.
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 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.
Greece 3. Areios Pagos, Decision No. 926 of 1973
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.