Court of Cassation, No. 14-14.421

Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 28 May 2015, No. 14-14.421

Judicial Chronology:

ICC Award No. 15832

Paris Court of Appeal, 14 January 2014, No. 12/15140

VINCI ÉNERGIES GSS

Vs.

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AG

SIEMENS

Whereas, according to the judgment under appeal (Paris, 14 January 2014), in order to bid for a call for tenders from the public establishment Aéroport de Paris, with a view to building a baggage sorting system for two terminals at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, Cegelec, to which Vinci Energies GSS is a subsidiary, concluded an agreement on 30 March 2000 to form a consortium with companies to which Siemens AG and Siemens SAS are affiliated. Cegelec complained that the latter companies failed to comply with their obligations and, pursuant to the arbitration clause in the consortium agreement, initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICC International Court of Arbitration. The Siemens companies appointed Mr. Y… as arbitrator. In particular, an award jointly and severally ordered the Siemens companies to pay Cegelec a certain amount and the latter to pay them another amount. Vinci Energies GSS filed an action for annulment of the award;

On the first ground, annexed hereafter:

Whereas Vinci Energies GSS objects to the following judgment dismissing its action;

Whereas, after noting that the professional ties between Mr Y.. and the counsel of Siemens companies, within the law firm Bredin Prat, in which he was then head of the litigation and arbitration department, had lasted only from 1987 to 1989 and that their affiliation to associations was a notorious fact, the Court of Appeal concluded that in view of these circumstances, the arbitrator was not obliged to reveal these facts. The ground, which, in its first part, challenges a superabundant reason for the judgment, cannot be upheld ;

The second ground, annexed hereafter:

Whereas Vinci Energies GSS made the same claim against the judgment;

Whereas, after noting that the award stated that the parties' liability could be determined either by the global method or by the sequential method and that the arbitrators adopted the former because of Cegelec’s interference in the functions of the Siemens companies, the Court of Appeal ruled that the arbitral tribunal made a choice between these two methods and deduced exactly from this that he did not disregard due process (in French Principe de la contradiction); that the ground cannot be accepted;

On the third ground, annexed hereafter:

Whereas the ground is manifestly not likely to result in the cassation;

FOR THESE REASONS:

DISMISSES the appeal;

Orders the company Vinci Energies GSS to pay the costs;

In view of article 700 of the code of civil procedure, dismisses its appeal and orders it to pay to the companies Siemens the total sum of 3000 Euros;

Thus done and judged by the Court of Cassation, first civil chamber, and delivered by the president in his public hearing on the twenty-eighth of May two thousand and fifteen.