CLOUT
  index.

The decision concerned the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award in Germany.

Both parties are shareholders of a Turkish company incorporated in Istanbul. Section 18 of their shareholders' agreement contains an arbitration clause. On May 26, 1994, the applicant brought a dispute before the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, which rendered an award on August 15, 1994. Before that date, on July 21, 1994, the respondent had already applied to an Istanbul court of first instance for a declaration on the inadmissibility of arbitration. The application was dismissed on November 18, 1996, by the Court of second instance. The respondent also made an application for the setting aside of the award before a Turkish court on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had decided the case without waiting for the court to rule on the admissibility of arbitration. This application was successful and the award was set aside by the Court of Second Instance on February 6, 1995. The applicant then filed the dispute for arbitration a second time at the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce. The newly composed tribunal ruled in favour of applicant on May 26, 1998, without ordering an oral hearing. A motion for the setting aside of this second award was dismissed by the Court of Second Instance on February 2, 1999. The respondent tried to resist the recognition and a declaration of enforceability of the award in the German Court relying on various grounds.

In respect of section 1061(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, the equivalent of article 36(1)(a)(ii) MAL, the Court stated that the tribunal's denial of a motion to take evidence could not constitute a violation of the right to present one's case. While it could amount to a denial of the right to audience under article 36(1)(b)(ii) MAL, this was not the case here, since it was not possible to determine whether the evidence could have caused the case to be decided differently.

The Court further held that the Turkish court had rendered a non-appealable decision on the arbitrability of the dispute at hand. Under section 328(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, the German court was bound to recognize this decision without further review, unless one of the exceptions under section 328(1) was met, which was not the case here.

The Court also held that the fact that no oral hearing had been ordered by the arbitral tribunal did not in itself constitute a violation of article 36(1)(a)(iv) MAL.

The Court found that German ordre public is only violated if the foreign decision is the result of a procedure which differs from the fundamental principles of German procedural law in such a way that under the German legal system it cannot be considered the result of a fair and constitutional procedure, because it contains substantial errors touching upon the very foundations of public and economic life.

The Court stated that while a misapplication of the law of limitation was in general a severe defect of an award and could lead to an infringement of the substantive German ordre public, this was not the case here. It also stressed that while it is usually not possible to review an arbitral award on the merits, it is possible to do so if the substantive ordre public is concerned.

Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 2003.