BELGIUM 10 B

Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels, 25 January 1996

(Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corp. v. Banque Arabe et Internationale d’Investissements)

25 - 01 - 1996

BELGIUM 10 B

Yearbook Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, A.J. van den Berg (ed.), Vol. XXII (1997)
Jurisdiction Belgium
Summary

See also Cour d’Appel, Brussels, 24 January 1997 (Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corp. v. Banque Arabe et Internationale d’Investissements) BELGIUM 10 A

Related topics
101

The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
106

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).

Problems concerning the identity of a party
222

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.

Arbitrator's competence and separability of the arbitration clause
301

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.

Procedure for enforcement in general
304

The court discusses the admissibility of a set off or counterclaim in enforcement proceedings under the Convention.

Set-off/counterclaim
402

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.

Original or copy arbitral award
501

The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.

Grounds are exhaustive
502

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.

No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
503

The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.

Burden of proof on respondent
508 Ground b: Violation of due process in general
512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
513 Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
522

Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.

Lack of reasons in award
524

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.

Other cases
601

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.

Adjournment of decision on enforcement
BELGIUM 10 B