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
    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 3 B

    The High Commercial Court of Banja Luka affirmed the decision of the Bijeljina District Commercial Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 3 A), which had referred to arbitration a dispute in respect of the construction and joint operation of a thermal power plant. The lower court had found that the requirements for referring the parties to arbitration were met, as the arbitration agreement was in writing, concerned existing or potential disputes under the contract, had been concluded by parties having the necessary legal capacity to do so, and was not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The appellate court agreed with the court below that it was irrelevant that the arbitration clause referred to an entity -- the Joint Association of the Yugoslav Electric Power Industry -- which no longer existed, pointing out that the law establishing the Joint Association had not designated it as an arbitral instituion. 

    Viši Privredni Sud, Banja Luka, 14 March 2013

    (Elektrogospodarstvo Slovenije-razvoj in inžinjering d.o.o. v. Rudnik i termoelektrana Ugljevik a.d. Ugljevik)

    217

    The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.

    Referral to arbitration in general
    220

    The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.

    "Null and void", etc.
    704

    More-favorable right provision: The court discusses the application of the 1961 European Convention together with the New York Convention, and the relationship between the two treaties.

    European Convention of 1961
  • Excerpt Topics
    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 3 A

    The District Commercial Court of Bijeljina referred a dispute concerning the construction and joint operation of a thermal power plant to arbitration, finding that the requirements for referral under the Convention were met: the parties' contract contained an arbitration clause in writing that concerned existing or potential disputes under the contract, and an arbitrable matter; had been concluded by parties having the necessary legal capacity; and was not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. It was irrelavent that the clause referred disputes to an entity -- the Joint Association of the Yugoslav Electric Power Industry -- which no longer existed. This decision was later affirmed by the High Commercial Court at Banja Luka (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 3 B).

    Okružni Privredni Sud, Bijeljina, 17 September 2012

    (Elektrogospodarstvo Slovenije-razvoj in inžinjering d.o.o. v. Rudnik i termoelektrana Ugljevik a.d. Ugljevik)

    217

    The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.

    Referral to arbitration in general
    220

    The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.

    "Null and void", etc.
    704

    More-favorable right provision: The court discusses the application of the 1961 European Convention together with the New York Convention, and the relationship between the two treaties.

    European Convention of 1961
  • Excerpt Topics
    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 1

    Bosnia and Herzegovina 1. Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine, 9 May 2006

    519

    Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.

    Ground a: Arbitrability
  • Excerpt Topics
    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 D

    The Bosnian courts first granted and then denied recognition of an ICC award rendered in Austria in respect of an agreement for the lease of industrial property in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Tuzla Cantonal Court granted recognition (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 A). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the national state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning real estate located in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 B). The Cantonal Court accordingly rendered a new decision denying recognition on the grounds set out by the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 C). By the present decision, the Supreme Court affirmed this second cantonal court decision. 

    Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19 May 2003

    (Inkometal AG v. Koksno Hemijski Kombinat d. d. Lukavac)

    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)
    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
    503

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

    Burden of proof on respondent
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    519

    Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.

    Ground a: Arbitrability
    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
    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 C

    The Bosnian courts first granted and then denied recognition of an ICC award rendered in Austria in respect of an agreement for the lease of industrial property in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Tuzla Cantonal Court granted recognition (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 A). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the national state court have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning real estate located in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 B). By the present decision, the Cantonal Court denied recognition of the ICC award on the grounds set out by the Supreme Court. This decision was later affirmed by the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 D). 

    Cantonal Court, Tuzla, 15 January 2003 

    (Inkometal AG v. Koksno Hemijski Kombinat d. d. Lukavac)

    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)
    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
    503

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

    Burden of proof on respondent
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    519

    Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.

    Ground a: Arbitrability
    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
    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 B

    The Bosnian courts first granted and then denied recognition of an ICC award rendered in Austria in respect of an agreement for the lease of industrial property in Bosnia. The Cantonal Court of Tuzla granted recognition (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 A). By the present decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the national state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning real estate in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On remand, the Cantonal Court found along the lines of the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 C). On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 D).

     

    Cantonal Court, Tuzla, 4 June 2002, Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 31 July 2002, Cantonal Court, Tuzla, 15 January 2003, and Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19 May 2003 (Inkometal AG v. Koksno Hemijski Kombinat d. d. Lukavac)

    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)
    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
    503

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

    Burden of proof on respondent
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    519

    Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.

    Ground a: Arbitrability
    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
    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 A

    The Bosnian courts first granted and then denied recognition of an ICC award rendered in Austria in respect of a dispute concerning an agreement for the lease of industrial property located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the present decision, the Cantonal Court granted recognition, holding that the claimant had met the New York Convention requirements and that the defendant had not proved any ground for refusal under the Convention.

    This decision was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 B). The Cantonal Court then rendered a new decision denying recognition (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 C), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 2 D). 

    Cantonal Court, Tuzla, 4 June 2002

    (Inkometal AG v. Koksno Hemijski Kombinat d. d. Lukavac)

    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)
    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
    503

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

    Burden of proof on respondent
    514 Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
    519

    Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.

    Ground a: Arbitrability
    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