Court Decisions

The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are in most cases published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976). 

Search options:

Court Decisions Search Engine

The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention.

  1. Most decisions are reported in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, published by ICCA since 1976, and are numbered as in the Yearbook (e.g., US no. 954).

  2. Other decisions are indicated by country, date, and a short name (e.g., UK 18 June 2020 Alexander Brothers).

Court decisions can be searched by country and by topic.

Court Decisions

Search Court Decisions

  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 11 February 2021 Republic X v Moldavian Company

    The Supreme Court denied the appeal filed against the decision of the Luxembourg Court of Appeal, which had granted exequatur of an SCC award. In respect of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court considered that the lower court had correctly applied the public policy reservation of Art. V(2)(b). In the context of exequatur proceedings, the review of the court is limited to the international concept of public policy. The party opposing enforcement argued that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly gone beyond that concept by applying the "manifest and determining fraud" (fraude manifeste et déterminante) standard. The Supreme Court found that, in fact, the lower court had concluded that no fraud at all had been proved.

    Cour de Cassation, 11 February 2021, no. 25/2021

    (Republic X v. Moldavian Company A Group et al.)

    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    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
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 12

    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.))
     

    401

    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.

    Conditions to be fulfilled by petitioner in general
    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
    505 Incapacity of party
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    523

    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.

    Irregularities in the arbitral procedure (see also Art. V(1)(b))
    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
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 10

    Luxembourg No. 10, Parties not indicated, Cour d'appel, No. 98/18 – VIII – Exequatur, 5 July 2018

    Cour d' Appel, 5 July 2018
    A et al. v. SOC2

    406

    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.

    Translation (paragraph 2)
    507

    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.

    Miscellaneous cases regarding the arbitration agreement
    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
    LUXEMBOURG 2021-B

    Cour de Cassation, 28 June 2018
    (Parties not indicated)
    In this chapter of the DIAG Human v. Czech Republic saga, the Supreme Court affirmed the
    2017 decision of the Court of Appeal, which in turn had affirmed the 2011 first instance
    decision recognizing a Czech ad hoc award. While the party seeking enforcement had not
    revealed to the 2011 court that applications for review arbitration were pending against the
    award in the Czech Republic, this argument had become moot by 2017, as the applications
    had been denied in 2014. Hence, enforcement could not be denied on grounds of public
    policy because of the procedural fraud allegedly committed by the applicant. The Supreme

    Court also found that it could not review the holding of the Court of Appeal that the award
    was binding under Czech law, because the interpretation and application of foreign law were
    questions of fact which pertained to the merits and fell outside the cassation review.

    Cour de Cassation, 28 June 2018
    (Parties not indicated)
    In this chapter of the DIAG Human v. Czech Republic saga, the Supreme Court affirmed the
    2017 decision of the Court of Appeal, which in turn had affirmed the 2011 first instance
    decision recognizing a Czech ad hoc award. While the party seeking enforcement had not
    revealed to the 2011 court that applications for review arbitration were pending against the
    award in the Czech Republic, this argument had become moot by 2017, as the applications
    had been denied in 2014. Hence, enforcement could not be denied on grounds of public
    policy because of the procedural fraud allegedly committed by the applicant. The Supreme

    Court also found that it could not review the holding of the Court of Appeal that the award
    was binding under Czech law, because the interpretation and application of foreign law were
    questions of fact which pertained to the merits and fell outside the cassation review.

    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)
    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    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
    LUXEMBOURG 9

    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

    500

    The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

    Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
    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
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    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
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 6

    Luxembourg 6. Czech Republic v. Company 1, Cour d’Appel, Luxembourg, 27 April 2017

    107

    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.

    Second reservation ("commercial reservation") (paragraph 3)
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    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
    LUXEMBROUG 7

    Luxembourg 7. PEMEX – Exploracion y Produccion v. Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de R.L. de C.V., Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, Case No. 59/17, 27 April 2017

    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
    702

    More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.

    Domestic law on enforcement of foreign award
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 5

    Luxembourg 5. Bolivian Republic of Venezuela v. Company 1 INC., Cour d’Appel, Luxembourg, 25 June 2015

    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
    LUXEMBOURG 8

    Luxembourg No. 8, Parties not indicated, Cour de Cassation, No. 18/15, 12 March 2015

    Cour de Cassation, 12 March 2015
    SOC1 v. SOC2 et al.

    701

    More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.

    More-favourable-right provision in general
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 4

    Luxembourg 4. Cour d' Appel, 18 December 2013

    516

    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.

    "Set aside"
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 3

    Luxembourg 3. Cour d’Appel, 26 July 2005

    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
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 2

    Luxembourg 2. Cour d'Appel, 28 January 1999

    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)
    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
    401

    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.

    Conditions to be fulfilled by petitioner in general
    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
    511

    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.

    "Otherwise unable to present his case"
    512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    517

    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.

    "Suspended"
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    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
    702

    More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.

    Domestic law on enforcement of foreign award
  • Excerpt Topics
    LUXEMBOURG 1

    Cour d’Appel, 24 November 1993 (Kersa Holding Company Luxembourg v. Infancourtage, et al.)

    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)
    102

    The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).

    Arbitral award not considered as domestic (paragraph 1)
    103

    The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention. 

    Nationality of the parties no criterion
    304

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

    Set-off/counterclaim
    401

    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.

    Conditions to be fulfilled by petitioner in general
    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
    518

    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.

    Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
    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