CLOUT
  index.

This decision dealt with the recognition and enforcement of awards set aside in their country of origin. The applicant, a Russian company, entered into a contract with the respondent for the repair of a ship. The contract contained an arbitration clause, which provided for arbitration before the "Arbitration Commission of the City of Moscow". When the respondent did not pay, the applicant filed a request for arbitration before the Arbitral Commission for Shipping Matters in Moscow. The Commission declared itself to be competent, arguing that, even though it had not been explicitly named in the arbitration agreement, there was no other arbitral commission for shipping law in Moscow. The Commission rendered an award in favour of the applicant, which was later set aside by the competent court in Moscow, holding that the arbitration agreement was not sufficiently certain regarding the arbitral institution. This decision was affirmed by the Highest Russian Court in Civil Matters. However, the Vice-President of the Highest Court of the Russian Federation challenged this decision, demanding a reappraisal of the case.

While that motion was still pending, the applicant moved for a declaration of recognition and enforceability of the award in Germany before the Higher Regional Court of Rostock.

The German Court denied a declaration of recognition and enforceability under section 1061(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (the equivalent of article 36(1)(a)(v) MAL) in conjunction with article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Under article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused if the award has been set aside by a competent authority of the country in which it was made. Under German Law, an award can only be declared enforceable if it has become binding under the law of the country in which it was made. This is the case if there is no domestic remedy against it.

If, on the contrary, the award has been set aside, it is no longer binding, even if the setting aside is only a provisionally enforceable decision. In this case, the award cannot be recognized under German Law. Therefore, it was immaterial that the Vice-President of the Highest Court of the Russian Federation had challenged the setting aside of the award, because the mere motion for a reappraisal did not suffice to render the award binding again.

Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 2003.