Originally from: Stockholm International Arbitration Review

Preview Page

SNF V CYTEC INDUSTRIE: NATIONAL COURTS WITHIN THE EC APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS TO REVIEW INTERNATIONAL AWARDS ALLEGEDLY CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 81 EC

Pierre Heitzmann and Jacob Grierson

1. Introduction

Since the decision of the European Court of Justice in Eco Swiss China vs. Benetton International case ("Eco Swiss") and the Thalès vs. Euromissile case ("Thalès") decision rendered by the Paris Court of Appeal, there has been a controversy among arbitration practitioners and scholars about the degree and scope of review of awards deciding EU competition law issues.

In two recent decisions rendered in France and in Belgium (which are still subject to appellate proceedings in both jurisdictions), the courts applied different standards to review the same award (the "SNF award"), and thus reached radically different results: while the recognition and enforcement of that award was granted in France in March 2006 (the "French SNF case"), both that award and an earlier partial award were annulled in Belgium in March 2007 as being contrary to Article 81 EC (the "Belgian SNF case").

2. Background Facts

The arbitral awards recognized by the Paris Court of Appeal and annulled by the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (the "TPI") related to two long-term contracts for the supply of acrylamide ("AMD") by Cytec, a Dutch company, to SNF, a French company. AMD, a chemical compound often used as a water-soluble thickener, is an essential raw material for products manufactured by SNF. The first supply contract (the "1991 Contract") was entered into in 1991 and was to run until June 30, 1995, but was replaced by a second contract (the "1993 Contract"), which was concluded on October 1, 1993.