Court of Cassation, No. 91-16.041

Court of cassation, 1ST civil chamber, 10 March 1993, No. 91-16.041

POLISH OCEAN LINE (POL), THE POLISH COMPANY

Vs.

JOLASRY, THE FRENCH COMPANY

On the only ground:

Pursuant to the arbitration clause, included in the representation contract concluded on 13 August 1988, between the Polish company Polish Ocean Line (POL) and the French company Jolasry, an arbitration award, rendered in Gdansk on 17 March 1990, ordered POL to pay damages to its co-contractor. On 12 April 1990, POL applied to the Economic Court of Gdansk for the “abolition” of this award, and that by decision of 22 May 1990, the Court “suppressed the execution” of the award until it had ruled on the application. The enforcement of the award was granted in France by order of 30 April 1990;

POL objects to the judgment under appeal (Douai, 18 April 1991) confirming that order. According to the plea in law, having regard to the appeal brought in Poland and the decision taken there, the Court of Appeal could not, without violating Articles 1498 and 1502 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, say that exequatur should be granted without even a stay of proceedings.

But whereas Article VII of the New York Convention of 10 June 1958 for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which France and Poland are parties, does not deprive any interested party of the right to rely on an arbitral award, in the manner and to the extent permitted by the law of the country where the award is invoked. It follows that the French court may not, where the award has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which it was made, refuse enforcement on a ground that is not among those listed in Article 1502 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, although it is provided for in Article V 1. e/ of the 1958 Convention. The Court of Appeal therefore rightly decided that the action for annulment brought and the stay of execution obtained in Poland could not justify the refusal of enforcement in France.

FOR THESE REASONS:

REJECTS THE APPEAL.