Arbitration in the Russian Federation – Latest amendments to the federal law

9 Aprile 2019

  • Russia
  • Arbitrato

Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

Takeaways

  • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
  • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

  1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

  1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
  2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
  3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
  4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
  5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

“…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

“…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

“Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

Conclusions

If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

[63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

The author of this post is David Stolow.

French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

  • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
  • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
  • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
  • the due process requirement was violated, or
  • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

Step 4: Seizing assets

Seizing funds

Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

Seizing other kinds of assets

It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

The author of this post is Flore Poloni

Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

  • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
  • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
  • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

  • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
  • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

How much does it tell us?

Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

Alexander Katzendorn

Aree di attività

  • Arbitrato
  • Diritto societario
  • Commercio internazionale
  • Contenzioso
  • Fisco e tasse
Contatta Alexander

Scrivi a Alexander





    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

    Arbitration in distribution contracts – The « IDArb »

    20 Novembre 2018

    • Spagna
    • Arbitrato
    • Distribuzione

    Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

    Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

    In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

    The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

    A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

    One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

    Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

    On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

    The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

    As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

    Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

    Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

    Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

    Takeaways

    • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
    • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

    Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

    It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

    And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

    The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

    The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

    1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

    Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

    1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
    2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
    3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
    4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
    5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

    To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

    State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

    Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

    “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

    “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

    The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

    One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

    “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

    As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

    Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

    There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

    A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

    The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

    In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

    The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

    The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

    The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

    The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

    In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

    Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

    Conclusions

    If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

    If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

    And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

    Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

    Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

    Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

    Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

    In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

    A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

    In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

    In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

    [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

    Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

    The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

    In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

    Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

    More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

    It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

    The author of this post is David Stolow.

    French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

    Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

    Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

    The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

    The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

    On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

    Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

    If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

    If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

    • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
    • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
    • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
    • the due process requirement was violated, or
    • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

    Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

    After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

    Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

    It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

    Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

    In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

    In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

    These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

    Step 4: Seizing assets

    Seizing funds

    Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

    The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

    Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

    As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

    Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

    The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

    The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

    Seizing other kinds of assets

    It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

    Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

    The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

    The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

    Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

    The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

    In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

    Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

    In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

    The author of this post is Flore Poloni

    Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

    Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

    In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

    Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

    • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
    • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
    • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

    Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

    • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
    • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

    Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

    Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

    Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

    Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

    One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

    On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

    Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

    Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

    How much does it tell us?

    Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

    The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

    Ignacio Alonso

    Aree di attività

    • Agenzia
    • Diritto societario
    • Distribuzione
    • Franchising
    Contatta Ignacio

    Scrivi a Ignacio





      Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
      Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

      Russia – Arbitration or state court?

      10 Luglio 2018

      • Russia
      • Arbitrato
      • Contenzioso

      Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

      Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

      In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

      The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

      A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

      One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

      Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

      On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

      The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

      As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

      Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

      Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

      Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

      Takeaways

      • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
      • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

      Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

      It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

      And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

      The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

      The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

      1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

      Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

      1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
      2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
      3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
      4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
      5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

      To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

      State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

      Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

      “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

      “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

      The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

      One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

      “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

      As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

      Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

      There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

      A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

      The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

      In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

      The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

      The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

      The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

      The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

      In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

      Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

      Conclusions

      If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

      If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

      And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

      Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

      Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

      Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

      Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

      In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

      A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

      In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

      In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

      [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

      Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

      The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

      In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

      Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

      More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

      It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

      The author of this post is David Stolow.

      French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

      Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

      Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

      The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

      The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

      On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

      Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

      If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

      If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

      • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
      • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
      • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
      • the due process requirement was violated, or
      • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

      Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

      After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

      Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

      It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

      Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

      In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

      In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

      These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

      Step 4: Seizing assets

      Seizing funds

      Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

      The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

      Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

      As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

      Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

      The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

      The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

      Seizing other kinds of assets

      It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

      Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

      The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

      The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

      Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

      The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

      In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

      Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

      In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

      The author of this post is Flore Poloni

      Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

      Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

      In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

      Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

      • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
      • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
      • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

      Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

      • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
      • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

      Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

      Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

      Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

      Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

      One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

      On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

      Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

      Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

      How much does it tell us?

      Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

      The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

      Alexander Katzendorn

      Aree di attività

      • Arbitrato
      • Diritto societario
      • Commercio internazionale
      • Contenzioso
      • Fisco e tasse
      Contatta Alexander

      Scrivi a Alexander





        Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
        Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

        Québec – The Powers of Arbitrators: Specific Performance, Interim Measures, and Injunctions, Oh My!

        17 Maggio 2018

        • Canada
        • Arbitrato

        Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

        Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

        In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

        The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

        A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

        One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

        Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

        On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

        The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

        As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

        Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

        Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

        Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

        Takeaways

        • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
        • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

        Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

        It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

        And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

        The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

        The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

        1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

        Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

        1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
        2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
        3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
        4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
        5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

        To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

        State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

        Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

        “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

        “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

        The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

        One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

        “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

        As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

        Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

        There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

        A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

        The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

        In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

        The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

        The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

        The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

        The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

        In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

        Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

        Conclusions

        If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

        If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

        And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

        Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

        Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

        Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

        Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

        In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

        A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

        In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

        In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

        [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

        Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

        The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

        In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

        Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

        More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

        It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

        The author of this post is David Stolow.

        French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

        Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

        Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

        The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

        The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

        On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

        Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

        If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

        If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

        • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
        • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
        • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
        • the due process requirement was violated, or
        • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

        Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

        After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

        Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

        It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

        Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

        In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

        In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

        These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

        Step 4: Seizing assets

        Seizing funds

        Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

        The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

        Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

        As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

        Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

        The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

        The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

        Seizing other kinds of assets

        It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

        Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

        The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

        The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

        Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

        The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

        In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

        Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

        In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

        The author of this post is Flore Poloni

        Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

        Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

        In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

        Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

        • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
        • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
        • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

        Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

        • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
        • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

        Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

        Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

        Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

        Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

        One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

        On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

        Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

        Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

        How much does it tell us?

        Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

        The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

        France – Enforcement of international arbitral awards

        13 Febbraio 2018

        • Francia
        • Arbitrato

        Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

        Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

        In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

        The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

        A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

        One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

        Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

        On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

        The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

        As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

        Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

        Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

        Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

        Takeaways

        • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
        • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

        Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

        It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

        And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

        The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

        The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

        1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

        Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

        1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
        2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
        3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
        4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
        5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

        To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

        State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

        Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

        “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

        “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

        The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

        One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

        “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

        As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

        Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

        There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

        A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

        The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

        In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

        The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

        The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

        The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

        The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

        In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

        Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

        Conclusions

        If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

        If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

        And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

        Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

        Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

        Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

        Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

        In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

        A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

        In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

        In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

        [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

        Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

        The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

        In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

        Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

        More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

        It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

        The author of this post is David Stolow.

        French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

        Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

        Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

        The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

        The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

        On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

        Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

        If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

        If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

        • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
        • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
        • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
        • the due process requirement was violated, or
        • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

        Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

        After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

        Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

        It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

        Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

        In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

        In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

        These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

        Step 4: Seizing assets

        Seizing funds

        Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

        The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

        Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

        As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

        Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

        The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

        The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

        Seizing other kinds of assets

        It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

        Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

        The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

        The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

        Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

        The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

        In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

        Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

        In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

        The author of this post is Flore Poloni

        Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

        Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

        In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

        Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

        • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
        • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
        • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

        Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

        • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
        • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

        Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

        Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

        Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

        Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

        One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

        On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

        Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

        Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

        How much does it tell us?

        Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

        The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

        Svizzera – Misure cautelari e sequestri sui beni del debitore

        13 Dicembre 2017

        • Svizzera
        • Arbitrato
        • Contenzioso
        • Recupero Credito

        Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

        Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

        In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

        The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

        A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

        One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

        Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

        On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

        The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

        As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

        Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

        Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

        Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

        Takeaways

        • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
        • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

        Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

        It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

        And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

        The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

        The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

        1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

        Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

        1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
        2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
        3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
        4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
        5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

        To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

        State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

        Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

        “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

        “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

        The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

        One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

        “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

        As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

        Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

        There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

        A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

        The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

        In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

        The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

        The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

        The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

        The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

        In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

        Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

        Conclusions

        If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

        If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

        And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

        Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

        Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

        Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

        Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

        In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

        A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

        In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

        In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

        [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

        Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

        The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

        In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

        Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

        More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

        It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

        The author of this post is David Stolow.

        French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

        Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

        Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

        The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

        The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

        On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

        Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

        If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

        If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

        • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
        • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
        • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
        • the due process requirement was violated, or
        • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

        Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

        After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

        Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

        It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

        Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

        In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

        In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

        These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

        Step 4: Seizing assets

        Seizing funds

        Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

        The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

        Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

        As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

        Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

        The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

        The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

        Seizing other kinds of assets

        It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

        Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

        The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

        The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

        Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

        The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

        In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

        Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

        In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

        The author of this post is Flore Poloni

        Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

        Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

        In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

        Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

        • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
        • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
        • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

        Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

        • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
        • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

        Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

        Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

        Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

        Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

        One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

        On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

        Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

        Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

        How much does it tell us?

        Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

        The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

        Karin Graf

        Aree di attività

        • Arbitrato
        • Contratti
        • Recupero credito
        • Fallimentare
        • Contenzioso
        Contatta Karin

        Scrivi a Karin





          Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
          Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

          A US Court Judgment Enforced in China – What Does it Mean for You?

          9 Ottobre 2017

          • Cina
          • USA
          • Arbitrato
          • Contenzioso

          Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

          Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

          In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

          The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

          A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

          One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

          Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

          On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

          The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

          As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

          Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

          Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

          Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

          Takeaways

          • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
          • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

          Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

          It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

          And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

          The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

          The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

          1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

          Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

          1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
          2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
          3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
          4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
          5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

          To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

          State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

          Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

          “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

          “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

          The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

          One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

          “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

          As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

          Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

          There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

          A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

          The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

          In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

          The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

          The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

          The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

          The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

          In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

          Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

          Conclusions

          If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

          If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

          And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

          Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

          Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

          Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

          Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

          In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

          A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

          In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

          In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

          [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

          Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

          The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

          In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

          Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

          More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

          It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

          The author of this post is David Stolow.

          French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

          Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

          Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

          The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

          The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

          On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

          Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

          If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

          If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

          • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
          • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
          • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
          • the due process requirement was violated, or
          • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

          Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

          After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

          Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

          It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

          Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

          In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

          In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

          These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

          Step 4: Seizing assets

          Seizing funds

          Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

          The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

          Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

          As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

          Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

          The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

          The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

          Seizing other kinds of assets

          It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

          Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

          The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

          The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

          Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

          The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

          In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

          Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

          In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

          The author of this post is Flore Poloni

          Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

          Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

          In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

          Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

          • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
          • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
          • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

          Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

          • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
          • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

          Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

          Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

          Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

          Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

          One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

          On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

          Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

          Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

          How much does it tell us?

          Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

          The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

          Switzerland – An excellent choice for arbitration

          17 Luglio 2017

          • Svizzera
          • Arbitrato
          • Contenzioso

          Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

          Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

          In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

          The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

          A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

          One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

          Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

          On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

          The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

          As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

          Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

          Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

          Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

          Takeaways

          • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
          • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

          Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

          It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

          And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

          The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

          The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

          1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

          Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

          1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
          2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
          3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
          4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
          5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

          To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

          State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

          Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

          “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

          “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

          The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

          One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

          “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

          As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

          Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

          There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

          A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

          The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

          In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

          The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

          The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

          The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

          The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

          In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

          Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

          Conclusions

          If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

          If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

          And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

          Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

          Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

          Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

          Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

          In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

          A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

          In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

          In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

          [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

          Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

          The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

          In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

          Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

          More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

          It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

          The author of this post is David Stolow.

          French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

          Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

          Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

          The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

          The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

          On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

          Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

          If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

          If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

          • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
          • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
          • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
          • the due process requirement was violated, or
          • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

          Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

          After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

          Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

          It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

          Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

          In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

          In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

          These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

          Step 4: Seizing assets

          Seizing funds

          Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

          The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

          Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

          As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

          Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

          The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

          The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

          Seizing other kinds of assets

          It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

          Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

          The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

          The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

          Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

          The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

          In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

          Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

          In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

          The author of this post is Flore Poloni

          Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

          Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

          In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

          Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

          • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
          • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
          • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

          Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

          • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
          • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

          Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

          Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

          Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

          Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

          One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

          On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

          Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

          Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

          How much does it tell us?

          Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

          The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

          Karin Graf

          Aree di attività

          • Arbitrato
          • Contratti
          • Recupero credito
          • Fallimentare
          • Contenzioso
          Contatta Karin

          Scrivi a Karin





            Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
            Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

            International Arbitration – 7 Essentials

            6 Giugno 2017

            • Arbitrato

            Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

            Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

            In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

            The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

            A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

            One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

            Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

            On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

            The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

            As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

            Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

            Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

            Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

            Takeaways

            • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
            • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

            Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

            It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

            And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

            The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

            The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

            1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

            Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

            1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
            2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
            3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
            4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
            5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

            To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

            State commercial court in Russia is named in the Russian language – Арбитражный суд. This name of the state commercial court is often translated into English as Arbitration court. Such translation in its turn often causes actual misunderstanding between the parties, since the Russian party will most probably consider the term “Arbitration court” as a state commercial court and the other (non-Russian) party might consider that it agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than in a state court.

            Below are some examples of dispute resolution clauses specified by the parties in commercial contracts that caused actual misunderstanding:

            “…if there is no agreement, any disputes and claims between the parties relating to the contract will be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce in Moscow by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said rules. The Arbitration court shall use the Russian law.”

            “…if a dispute is not resolved within 30 days of written notification of the dispute by one party to the other, anyone of the parties may submit the dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the Moscow City Arbitration Court”.

            The wording of such clauses and its translation, specifically translation of the term “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of claims by the state commercial courts in Russia, rather than by arbitration. In such situations failure of the non-Russian party to defend itself in the Russian state commercial courts might lead to serious negative consequences.

            One of the well-known arbitration institutions in Russia – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation recommends the following arbitration clause:

            “Any dispute, controversy or claim which may arise out of or in connection with the present contract (agreement) [in case a separate arbitration agreement is concluded a particular contract (agreement) is to be indicated], or the entering into force, conclusion, alteration, execution, breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in accordance with its applicable regulations and rules. An arbitral award shall be final for the parties. It shall not be allowed to submit a motion to a state court to make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in connection with the issuance by the arbitral tribunal of a separate order on existence of jurisdiction as a matter of preliminary nature”. (http://mkas.tpprf.ru/en/documents/)

            As you can see the full name of the arbitration institution is “International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation” and using its short name “Arbitration court” might result in resolution of disputes by the state commercial court.

            Another situation is when the parties actually wish to resolve commercial disputes in a state commercial court in Russia but fail to specify the name of the state commercial court correctly. Believe it or not, but there are many lawyers who consider Russian state courts as an effective and less expensive judicial body to resolve commercial disputes as opposed to arbitration.

            There was one interesting case mentioned by the Supreme Court of Russia in this regard in its recent overview of court practice on resolving of disputes connected with protection of foreign investors in Russia.

            A foreign company filed a claim with the state commercial court in Russia against another foreign company. The court determined that the parties of the dispute concluded prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) in accordance with which all disputes arising from the specified contract and in connection with it shall be resolved in the courts of general competence of Russia.

            The state commercial court of first instance considered that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve this case, because the parties did not agree to resolve their disputes in the state commercial courts, with that the courts of general competence do not resolve commercial disputes between companies in Russia. As a result, the court of first instance returned the claim to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve this dispute.

            In the appeal claim the claimant argued that the prorogation agreement was unenforceable, since the court specified by the parties (the courts of general competence) do not consider commercial disputes of legal entities in Russia. The foreign company also argued that there was a close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation, and therefore the state commercial court had competence to consider this case.

            The appeal court dismissed the ruling of the court of first instance and the case was returned for re-consideration to the court of first instance based on the following grounds.

            The appeal court ruled that the enforceable prorogation agreement shall provide possibility to determine the actual intent (true intent) of the parties regarding competence of the state court to resolve disputes.

            The appeal court determined that the prorogation agreement agreed by the parties was unenforceable, since such agreement failed to determine the intent of the parties to resolve disputes in a specific court or a system of competent state courts where the specific state court shall be determined based on the rules of internal competence of courts.

            The appeal court further ruled that if prorogation agreement is unenforceable the competent court of the Russian Federation shall use general rules of competence of state commercial courts of the Russian Federation set forth in the Commercial procedural code of the Russian Federation.

            In this specific case the subject of the disputed transaction was a sale of share in the charter capital of the company registered at the territory of the Russian Federation. The appeal court in this case established close connection of the dispute with the territory of the Russian Federation and ruled that the state commercial court was competent to consider such dispute.

            Therefore, if the parties of the contract fail to correctly stipulate the specific state commercial court to consider their disputes in Russia, such prorogation agreement (choice of forum clause) might be considered by the state commercial court in Russia unenforceable and the claim might be returned to the claimant due to the lack of competence of the state commercial court to resolve such dispute.

            Conclusions

            If you wish to resolve disputes in the state commercial court in Russia, make sure that the full name of the state commercial court is specified correctly. 

            If you wish to resolve disputes by arbitration in Russia it would be reasonable to use a recommended arbitration clause of respective arbitration institution.

            And, of course, be sure to check translation of the English version of the contract into Russian.

            Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province.  This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

            Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

            Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders.  An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

            Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something.  The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

            In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration.  More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee.  The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

            A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions.  In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner.  The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.”  The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

            In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

            In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

            [63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

            Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

            The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801).  As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

            In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law.  As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].”  The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days.  In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

            Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”).  In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

            More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”).  In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders.  The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

            It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions.  The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

            The author of this post is David Stolow.

            French law is known to be highly favorable to the enforcement of international arbitral awards (notably those rendered outside of France). This forum should accordingly be considered as a matter of priority if the opposing party holds assets in France.

            Are presented below the necessary steps in order to enforce an international arbitral award in France. Please note that some of the steps described are only potential and depend upon the other party’s possible will to resist enforcement.

            Step 1: Obtaining exequatur

            The award is presented to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Civil Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) ex parte who decides whether or not to grant exequatur. There are no briefs to file.

            The time required for the Presiding Judge’s answer varies greatly according to the caseload of the Court and his availability. Nevertheless, in case of specific emergency, it is always possible to discuss with the clerk’s office to handle the matter on an urgent basis.

            On a practical note, the following documents are required in order to proceed: an original version or certified copy of the award, a certified translation of the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement and a certified translation of the same and one additional copy of each of these documents.

            Step 2: Defending exequatur (potentially)

            If exequatur is granted or denied, the order may be appealed at the Paris Court of Appeal within one month starting from its service. Additional delay for distance may apply if the appealing party is domiciled or is registered abroad.

            If exequatur is granted, it is often the case that the opposing party attempts to question the enforceability of the award in France on the limited grounds of article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (« CCP »):

            • the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction,
            • the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted,
            • the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it,
            • the due process requirement was violated, or
            • recognition or enforcement of the award would violate French international public policy.

            Of interest in the current judicial environment, is new case law of the Paris Court of Appeal allowing limited revision of the fact findings of the arbitral tribunal in cases of alleged bribery (see AD newsflash on the matter).

            After filing an appeal, the opposing party is required to file its complete submissions on the appeal within 3 months and the defendant has 3 months to answer from the notification date of the appellant’s submissions (new delay as per the reform of 6 May 2017 in force since September 2017).

            Additional submissions may be filed, one additional set is common practice, and a single hearing is usually scheduled to take place around 18 months after the appellant’s initial declaration to the Court.

            It is important to note that during such proceedings the award, whose exequatur has been granted, will remain enforceable in France and that accordingly there are no obstacles for the beneficiary of the award to proceed with any seizure unless the defendant makes a specific application to the Court to stay enforcement (Article 1526 CCP).

            Step 3: Defending immediate enforceability of the award (potentially)

            In order to take into account specific circumstances that would unjustly prejudice the party against whom a decision is enforced, the CCP reserves the possibility to request the Court of Appeal a stay of the enforcement of the award in exceptional circumstances.

            In such case, the debtor would have to prove that enforcement would entail seriously detrimental consequences to his rights (Article 1526 §2). The criteria to meet are restrictive. When the beneficiary of the award is a foreign company, it is often requested as an alternative that the monies be put under escrow and not immediately transferred to the beneficiary on the basis that it will be difficult for the opposing party to recover the funds should it be successful in its appeal against the exequatur order.

            These proceedings are usually expedited (hearing within one or two months). The opposing party files a request as soon as it has appealed the exequatur order. A brief in answer rapidly needs to be filed depending on the date of the hearing.

            Step 4: Seizing assets

            Seizing funds

            Upon receipt of the exequatur order, a bailiff may be instructed to seize any funds held in bank accounts in France.

            The process is that of a “saisie-attribution”, hereinafter referred to as a seizure. The bailiff is instructed to visit the relevant banks’ headquarters and notify that monies corresponding to the award are seized.

            Please note that French bailiffs have access to a specific file called FICOBA which provides them with the names of all the banks where the debtor holds accounts.

            As soon as a bailiff requests funds from a bank, the bank has an obligation to provide detailed information on the funds available. Most banks are organized to answer the bailiff’s request on the same day.

            Once the bailiff has performed the seizure, the amounts are considered to be the creditor’s property and are rendered unavailable to the debtor. This can paralyze the business of the debtor so it is recommended to proceed with caution.

            The seizure is then notified to the debtor within 8 days.

            The funds remain frozen the time to allow potential challenges by the debtor (one month).

            Seizing other kinds of assets

            It is possible to seize a variety of other assets under French law of course (real property, company shares, debt obligations etc.). Seizing funds is usually the easiest.

            Step 5: Challenge by the opposing party of the seizures (potentially)

            The seized party will have a right to challenge the seizures before the Enforcement Judge (“Juge de l’exécution” or “JEX”) within a month of the notification of the seizure.

            The arguments that can be raised by the opposing party usually concern the seizure itself and not the validity of the exequatur order as other proceedings are available for that purpose.

            Several briefs are usually exchanged and a hearing is held before the JEX.

            The JEX’s decision can be appealed. The appeal does not stay enforcement. However, there exist specific proceedings to request the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement under certain conditions (manifestly excessive consequences).

            In conclusion, the process is rather straightforward even though there are legitimate recourses available to the debtor and the above may appear pretty technical. This is natural given the potential use of the public force once exequatur is obtained.

            Please note that although French Courts are known not to be very generous in terms of awarding legal fees, there have been decisions in which significant amounts have been ordered in this field (for example EUR 600,000 in CA Paris, 26 sept. 2017, no 16/15338). Therefore, in case of success the costs of enforcement are borne by the debtor.

            In case of absence of challenges, it usually takes between two to three months to obtain the wire of the funds in favor of the creditor (however as explained above, as soon as the seizure is performed the funds are immediately frozen until all potential recourses have expired).

            The author of this post is Flore Poloni

            Come evitare che il debitore si liberi dei propri beni per evitare un’esecuzione forzata? In Svizzera un creditore può farlo con un sequestro conservativo, a due condizioni: in primo luogo, il debitore non deve essere residente o avere un domicilio in Svizzera; in secondo luogo, il creditore deve essere in possesso di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale favorevole.

            Nonostante la pressione crescente degli altri stati, la Svizzera continua a ricoprire un ruolo dominante nel panorama finanziario. Per questo motivo la giurisdizione svizzera è molto importante per i soggetti (persone fisiche o giuridiche) che desiderano eseguire i propri crediti nei confronti di debitori che detengono conti correnti bancari o altri beni in Svizzera. Sebbene nella pratica il sequestro conservativo venga effettuato principalmente su conti bancari, è possibile utilizzare lo stesso strumento anche per aggredire, con il medesimo effetto, altri beni, come ad esempio patrimoni immobiliari, opere d’arte o beni di terzi creditori nei confronti del debitore.

            In questo post (in lingua inglese) sul blog di Legalmondo è stato trattato il nuovo regolamento europeo 655/2014 entrato in vigore nel gennaio 2017 (non applicabile in Svizzera) sui sequestri sui conti correnti bancari negli stati appartenenti all’Unione Europea.

            Tornando alla Svizzera, un creditore può chiedere al tribunale del luogo dove si trovano i beni del debitore o la sede della banca l’emissione di un sequestro conservativo, solo se dimostra che sussistono prima facie i tre requisiti previsti dalla Legge federale sulla esecuzione e sul fallimento (“Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act”), ovvero:

            • il credito è esigibile e non garantito;
            • i beni del debitore da sequestrare si trovano in Svizzera;
            • vi sono i presupposti legali per ottenere un sequestro conservativo.

            Questi presupposti, come già anticipato, richiedono principalmente che:

            • Il debitore non sia residente in Svizzera e l’azione stessa sia sufficientemente connessa con la Svizzera o sia fondata su un riconoscimento del debito sottoscritto dal debitore (“sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera”);
            • Il creditore disponga di una sentenza o un lodo arbitrale esecutivi contro il debitore (“titolo esecutivo”).

            Sequestro contro un soggetto non residente in Svizzera. Ai sensi della Legge Federale, il mero fatto che i beni del debitore si trovino in Svizzera non è sufficiente a stabilire una “connessione sufficiente con la Svizzera”. Tale presupposto dipende principalmente dalle circostanze specifiche della controversia, che il tribunale svizzero valuterà caso per caso. La giurisprudenza svizzera ha, però, individuato alcuni criteri di connessione nel caso in cui: il contratto tra le parti sia stato sottoscritto o debba essere eseguito in Svizzera; il contratto sia governato dalla legge svizzera; il creditore viva in Svizzera o l’azione del creditore sia collegata ad un’attività commerciale svolta in Svizzera.

            Titolo esecutivo. Al fine di poter chiedere il sequestro conservativo, il creditore deve anche disporre di un titolo esecutivo valido. La Legge Federale non fa alcuna distinzione né tra sentenze e lodi arbitrali, né tra pronunce nazionali o straniere, a patto che siano esecutive (ai sensi della Convenzione di Lugano o della Legge federale sul diritto internazionale privato, oppure – nel caso di un lodo arbitrale straniero – ai sensi della Convenzione di New York del 1958).

            Il procedimento. Il tribunale svizzero chiederà al creditore di produrre prime facie la prova dei presupposti legali appena visti. Il provvedimento verrò poi emesso su istanza di parte e spesso può essere concesso inaudita altera parte, quindi – in questi casi – coglierà il debitore di sorpresa, togliendogli la possibilità di spostare le somme di denaro o i beni in altri luoghi.

            Il sequestro conservativo – specialmente se emesso inaudita altera parte – è uno strumento particolarmente efficace, perché impedisce al debitore di disporre dei beni sequestrati, che non potranno essere così occultati. È quindi un’arma considerevole a disposizione del creditore che voglia assicurarsi la fruttuosità di un’azione esecutiva e, da ultimo, recuperare il suo credito.

            One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

            On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

            Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case.  It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

            Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

            How much does it tell us?

            Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

            The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

            Benjamin Leventhal

            Aree di attività

            • Arbitrato
            • Diritto societario
            • Contenzioso
            Contatta Benjamin

            Scrivi a Benjamin





              Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
              Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.