- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- HUNGARY 17
HUNGARY 17
17. Kúria, 29 August 2023, Pfv.II.20.510/2023/8
(Creditor v. Debtor)
HUNGARY 17
The Supreme Court denied recognition and enforcement of a Russian award, finding that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded the scope of its authority. The claimant had commenced arbitration based on the arbitration clause in an agreement concluded with defendant 1 to settle their mutual claims, but had then sought – and been awarded – damages under a different agreement concluded with other companies of the same group (defendants 1 to 4) to regulate their future relationships. The Court also held that the claimant had complied with the conditions of Art. IV of the New York Convention, even though it had supplied the necessary documents later than at the time of filing the application, noting that Hungarian courts do not obstruct exequatur applications with a strict interpretation of procedural rules. See also BELGIUM 17 and GERMANY 172, rendered in the same case.
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 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 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.
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.