- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- QATAR 2022-A
QATAR 2022-A
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
... Read more
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.
QATAR 2022-A
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.