CLOUT
  index.

This decision concerned an application for the setting aside of an arbitral award.

Both parties are manufacturers and distributors of car door locks. On March 9, 1993, the parties entered into a license agreement concerning the manufacture and distribution of car door locks. The defendant is the producer of the A-lock, for which it holds a patent under Italian law. The applicant is the producer of the B- lock. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the question whether the B-lock was covered by the defendant's patent for the A-lock and whether any royalties were due. On June 27, 1996, the parties agreed to submit the dispute to ICC arbitration. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the patent holder (i.e. the defendant).

The applicant applied to the Higher Regional Court for the setting aside of this award. It argued that the arbitral tribunal did not possess the required knowledge of Italian patent law and had therefore been under a duty to call for a neutral expert opinion. Even though the applicant had offered such an opinion, the tribunal had neither ordered one nor given any reasons for its decision. This, in the applicant's view, constituted a violation of the applicant's right to be heard, leading to a ground for the setting aside of the award under section 1059(2) Nr. 1(d) (arbitral procedure) as well as section 1059(2) Nr. 2(b) (ordre public) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (article 34(2)(a)(iv) MAL and article 34(2)(b)(ii) MAL).

Under German law, courts do not have the power to review an arbitral award on the merits. The Court therefore could not review whether the tribunal had applied Italian patent law correctly. It could only review whether any mistake had been made in the process of establishing the principles of Italian law. However, it was clear from the facts that the tribunal had established the principles in accordance with an earlier expert opinion submitted by the applicant. Thus, even in the unlikely case of a mistake, such a mistake could not have led to a different award, and could therefore not justify the setting aside of the award.

Secondly, it was apparent from the award itself that the tribunal had considered a certain technical aspect raised by the applicant, but come to the conclusion that it was not relevant under Italian law. Again, the Court emphasized that it could not review the application of Italian law.

The Court found that the fact that the tribunal had not given reasons for its decision not to obtain an independent expert opinion did not violate the applicant's right to be heard. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, it has to be assumed that the tribunal has complied with its duty to hear all submissions by the parties. A violation of the right to be heard can only be assumed under special circumstances.

The applicant's second argument concerning section 1059(2) Nr.2(b) was also dismissed. Even though an infringement of the applicant's right to be heard could generally constitute a violation of the German ordre public, there was no indication of such an infringement in the present circumstances.

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