Court Intervention Limits in Solving the Issue of Recognition-Enforcement of the Arbitral Award
Keywords:
Recognition-enforcement, limits of court intervention, arbitral award, corruptive bargain, mediation agreement, minimal standard of intervention, maximal standard of intervention, intermediate standard of intervention.Abstract
The main purpose of the present work is to demonstrate main bases for intervention of courts in solving an issue of recognition-enforcement of the arbitral award. More attention will be paid to corruption, because it destroys main principles of public order of every civilized state that is firmly proved and condemned at the international level. In this work there are discussed main bases, when and within what limits a court can intervene in the decision of the arbitral court when an issue of recognition-enforcement of the decision is being solved. The harmonization of different jurisdictions in relation to this issue will decrease contradictions in practice of international conflicts resolution on issues connected with corruption and other grounds discussed in this article.
References
Belgian Judicial Code, 2007.
English Arbitration Act, 1996.
German Arbitration Law, 1998.
Italian Code of Civil Procedure, 1942
Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure, 1992.
New York Convention, 1958.
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations, 2008.
Swiss Federal Code on Private International Law, 1987.
UNCITRAL Model Law, 2006.
Fawcett J., Carruthers J., Private International Law, 14. Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, 143-146.
Gaillard E., Extent of Court Review of Public Policy, in: New York Law Journal, Oxford University Press 1994, ALM, New York City, 2007, 3.
Born G., International Arbitration: Law and Practice, Kluwer International, Hague, 134-135, 322-325, 327-328.
Born G., International Commercial Arbitration, Vol. 2, Kluwer International, Hague, 2015, 2573-2575.
Hanotiau B., Satisfying the Burden of Proof: The Viewpoint of a Civil Law Lawyer, in: Arbitration International 1994, Vol. 10, Issue 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994 268-269, 804.
Leong C.Y., Commentary on AJT v. AJU, Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 2010, 3-4.
Timothy M., An International Arbitration and Corruption: Evolving Standard, in: Transnational Dispute Management 2004, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 38. 38.
Mayer P., Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration, in: Arbitration International, 1986, Vol. 2, Issue 4, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 275.
Mcilwarth M., Savage J., International Arbitration and Mediation, A Practical Guide, Kluwer International, Hague, 2010, 327.
Nicholls C., Timothy D., Bacarese A., Hatchard J., Corruption and Misues of Public Office, 2. edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011, 310 – 311.
Sayed A., Corruption in International Trade and Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, Hague, 2004, 15, 24, 35, 168-169, 190-230, 271-272, 348-353, 291-421.
Liluashvili T., International Private Law, Tbilisi, 2012, 167, (In Georgian).
Tsertsvadze G., International arbitration, Tbilisi, 2012, 23, (In Georgian).
The Singapore Court of Appeal, SGCA 41, AJU v AJT, 2011.
Street Assoc., LLC v. Mattel, Inc. 128 s. Ct 1396 (U.S. S. Ct. 2008).
Lesotho Highlands Dev. Auth. v. Impregilo SpA [2006] 1 A.C. 221, at 29 (House of Lords).
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v. TTMI Ltd of England [2005] EWHC 2238 (Comm.) (Q.B.).
Lucent Tech ., Inc. v. Tatung Co., 379 F.3d 24, 31 (2d Cir. 2004).
High Regional Court of Bavaria, 4Z Sch 23/02, 2003.
Paris Court of Appeal, No. 2002/60932, SA Thales Air Défense v. Euromissile, 2002.
Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangen Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 190 F.Supp.2d 936, 945 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
The High Court of Appeal of England, Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Company Ltd., APP.L.R. 05/12, 1999.
Court of Appeal of England, 97/0882 CMSl, Sion Soleimany v Abner Soleimany, 1999.
AAOT Foreign Economic Ass’n (VO) Technostroyexsport v. Intl’l Dev. And Trade Sers. Inc., 139 F.3d 980 (2d Cir.1999).
High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Hilmarton Ltd. v. Omnium de Traitment et de Valorisation S.A, 1999.
High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Hilmarton Ltd. v. Omnium de Traitment et de Valorisation S.A, 1999.
Paris Court of Appeal, Thomson-CSF v Frontier AG, 1999.
Singapore Court of Appeal, CA 47/1999, Peh Teck Quee v Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale, 1999.
High Regional Court of Hamburg, 6 U 110/97, 1998.
Paris Court of Appeal, Thomson-CSF v. Frontier AG, 1998.
Swiss Federal Tribunal, Thomson-CSF v Frontier AG, 1997.
ICC Rulings: ICC case No. 7664, Frontier AG v. Brunner Sociede vs Thomson CSF, Final Award, 1996.
Swiss Federal Tribunal, Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Company Ltd, 1996.
Westacre Investments Inc. v. Jugoimport – SDPR. Holding Co. Ltd, Arbitral Award, 1994.
Hilmarton Ltd. v. Omnium de Traitment et de Valorisation S.A, 1994.
Paris Court of Appeal, Alsthom Gas Turbines SA v Westman International Ltd, 1993.
Swiss Federal Tribunal, Hilmarton Ltd. v. Omnium de Traitment et de Valorisation S.A, 1990.
ICC Rulings: ICC case No. 5622, 1988 and 1992. French Supreme Court.
Fiat SpA v. Ministry of Fin. And Planning, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11995 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Unites States Supreme Court, 83-1569, Mitsubushi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc, 1985.
United States District Court, C.D. California, CV83-7945, Northrop Corp. v Triad Financial Establishment, 1984.
United States District Court, N.D. New York, 83-CV-529, Swift Indep. Packing Co. v. District Union Local One, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, 1983.
Coast Trading Co. v. Pacific Molasses Co., 681 F. 2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1982).
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 449 F.2d 106, Cook Industries, Inc. v. C. Itoh & Co. (America) Inc., 1971.
United States District Court, SD New York., 72 F.Supp. 825, San Carlo Opera Co., Ltd. v. Conley, 1946.
United States Court of Appeals, KB 287, Foster Driscoll and Others, Linday v. Attfield and Another, Lindsay v Driscoll and Others, 1929.
Coast Trading Co. v. Pacific Molasses Co., 681 F. 2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1982).
http://www.williamwpark.com/documents/Why%20Courts%20Review%20Awards.pdf, 535.
