X. AG v. Y. a.s. [Succession of Arbitral Institutions in the Czech Republic] No. 4A_124/2010 - Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports (SIALR) - 2010 Vol. 4 Nos. 1 & 2
Page Count:
48 pages
Media Description:
1 PDF Download
Published:
November, 2013
Practice Areas:
Description:
Originally from:
Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports 2010 Vol. 4 Nos. 1 and 2
Preview Page
No. 36
X. AG v. Y. a.s.
[Succession of Arbitral Institutions in the Czech Republic]
No. 4A_124/2010
Headnote
■ Neither the New York Convention nor Swiss municipal law
prevents the filing of a fresh application for enforcement of a foreign
arbitral award based on new documents that were not filed with a
previous application.
■ Where the signature of the presiding arbitrator has been duly
certified by a notary public, that will suffice under article IV(1)(a) of
the New York Convention when the authenticity of the award is not
in dispute. The authentication of the signature of the co-arbitrators
and other persons having signed the award is not required in such
case.
■ An arbitration clause referring to an arbitral institution which no
longer exists at the time when the request for arbitration is filed is
valid and binding provided that (i) another arbitral institution has
succeeded to the former institution in accordance with the law, (ii)
the arbitration rules of the new institution are not fundamentally
different from those of the institution chosen by the parties and (iii)
the rules of the new institution do not contain any fundamental
limitations of the parties’ rights which were not contained in the
rules of the old institution.
Summary of the Decision
A contract made in 1992 by X. AG and Y. a.s. included an arbitration
clause making provision for arbitration before a “tribunal of the
Czechoslovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Prague.” In 1996,
Y. a.s. brought an arbitration against X. AG before the Arbitration Court
attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and
Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (“the Arbitration Court”).
The arbitral tribunal made an award for Y. a.s. In 2004, Y. a.s. sought to
enforce the award in Switzerland. However, Y. a.s. withdrew its
application for enforcement at the main hearing and the case was
removed from the docket as a consequence. In 2008, Y. a.s. brought
fresh proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Zurich, seeking a
declaration that the award was enforceable. The Court of First Instance
declared the award to be enforceable for part of the award debt, which