- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- LUXEMBOURG 15
LUXEMBOURG 15
Cour d’appel, 5 November 2020, Case No. CAL-2019-00415, Decision No. 125/20 - VIII - Exequatur
(Republic A) (in fact, Greece), represented by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Citizen Protection v. Company 1) Inc)
LUXEMBOURG 15
Greece opposed the ex parte order which had enforced an ICC award made in respect of a dispute over a security system for the 2004 Olympic Games in Greece. It argued that the parent company of the respondent’s main subcontractor had established a system of bribes and that, as a consequence, enforcement should be denied on grounds of public policy. The Court found that Greece failed to prove that the subcontractor had committed acts of corruption to induce Greece to enter into the agreement with the respondent: this contention had been rejected by the arbitrators, and Greece failed to bring new evidence to prove it.
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 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.
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.