Court of Cassation, No. 10-18.763

Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 9 March 2011, No. 10-18.763

Chantiers de l’Atlantique (CAT)

Vs.

Gaztransport & Technigaz (GTT)

The FIRST Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation delivered the following judgment:

Whereas on 17 December 2001, Chantiers de l’Atlantique (CAT) concluded a technology licensing agreement with Gaztransport & Technigaz GTT) for the construction of three LNG tankers, with GTT providing its tank insulation technology; whereas on 17 December 2001, CAT initiated arbitration proceedings against GTT; whereas by a final award made in London, on 3 February 2009, the arbitral tribunal declared CAT’s claims unfounded, ordered CAT to pay certain sums to GTT and ordered the provisional enforcement of the award; that CAT appealed against the enforcement order (in French Ordonnance d’exequatur);

On the first ground, taken in its three parts, annexed hereafter:

Whereas CAT complains that the contested judgment (Paris, first April 2010) rejected its application for a stay of proceedings;

Whereas, after noting that CAT did not file its complaint with a civil action, the Court of Appeal, which was not seized of the application of Article 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decided with discretion that there was no reason to stay the proceedings so that its decision is not subject to review by the Court of Cassation;

On the second ground, taken in its first five parts, annexed hereafter:

Whereas the company CAT complains about the decision which confirmed the enforcement order;

Whereas, after analyzing the procedures for the communication of documents and finding that CAT waived its right to the communication of certain documents, the judgment, first of all, holds that the company was unwilling to claim that these documents had been concealed and then that the company was alleging fraud without providing proof of this; that, since the review of the compliance of an arbitral award with international public order is limited to the flgrant, and concrete nature of the alleged violation, the Court of Appeal was able to decide that CAT sought to review the merits of the case which is outside the jurisdiction of the annulment judge; that the ground is unfounded.

On the second ground, taken in its last three parts, annexed hereto:

Whereas CAT invokes the same ground;

Whereas the judgment notes that the award includes 247 pages and 1417 paragraphs of scrupulous and careful reasoning and that the five challenged paragraphs each constitute a conclusion after a detailed examination of the parties' positions; that, since the review of the content of the reasoning by the judge of annulment is prohibited, the Court of Appeal was able to decide that the reasoning of the award was enough and that the ground was unfounded.

FOR THESE REASONS :

DISMISSES the appeal;

Orders CAT to pay the costs;

Pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rejects CAT’s request and orders it to pay GTT the sum of 3,000 euros.

Thus done and judged by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the president in its public hearing of 9 March 2011