International and Domestic Procedure of Ordre Public to Recognize and Enforce Foreign Arbitral Awards (Enforcement in France and Russia)
Abstract
The article analyzes judicial enforcement experience, legislation and French and Russian doctrines as to refusing to recognize and execute foreign arbitration awards as this contradicts ordre public. A division is made between the categories of domestic ordre public and international ordre public. The majour methods applied in the paper are comparative analysis and comparative law. The article touches upon the problems of material ordre public. A conclusion has been made that defining this category poses a serious problem. In comparison, the category of procedural ordre public is easier to define. Judicial practice does not give a definition of material ordre public but the underlying principle is that the system of principles and values embodying a national ordre public cannot be recognized even in international cases. French legislation and judicial practice has the concept of international ordre public and recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitration awards is understood in a narrower sense than international ordre public. Russian legislation does not operate the concept of international ordre public, but the analysis of legal norms allows making a conclusion that when recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitration awards, not a public order of the Russian Federation is meant but public order taking into account international obligations of the Russian Federation and the character of relations containing a foreign element. The research has allowed making the following conclusions. It is required to draw a clear line between French domestic law and international arbitration law as when checking a foreign arbitration award a judge can not refuse exequatur due to the wrong application of the norms of domestic ordre public. A simple violation by an arbitration award by French ordre public is insufficient to recognize it contradicting international ordre public. Russian legislation regulating the issues of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitration awards needs to include the concept of international ordre public understood as fundamental legal principles of mandatory nature, universal character, special public significance and being the basis for economic, political, legal system of the Russian Federation considering its international obligations and the character of relations related to foreign enforcement.
References
Bogatina Y.G. (2010) Ogovorka o publichnom poryadke v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave: teoreticheskie problem i sovremennaya praktika [Clause on Ordre Public in International Private Law]. Moscow: Statut. (in Russian)
Erpylyova N.Yu. (2011) Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo: uchebnik [International Private Law: a textbook]. Moscow. (in Russian)
Korabel'nikov B.R. (2008) Ispolnenie i osparivanie resheniy mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh arbitrazhey. Kommentariy k N'yu-Yorkskoy konventsii 1958 i glavam 30 i 31 APK RF [Implementation and Disputing the Awards of International Arbitration Courts. Commentary to the 1958 New York Convention and Chapters 30 and 31 of RF Arbitration Code]. Moscow: Statut. (in Russian)
Korabel'nikov B.R. (2001) Problema publichnogo poryadka pri privedenii v ispolnenie resheniy mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh arbitrazhey [Problem of Ordre Public when implementing the Awards of International Arbitration Courts]. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava, no 8.
Yarkov V.V. (Ed.) (2011) Kommentariy k Arbitrazhnomu protsessual'nomu kodeksu RF (Postateiniy) [Commentaries to RF Arbitration Procedure Code]. Moscow. (in Russian)
Zhuikov V.M., Treushnikov M.K. (Eds.) (2007) Kommentariy k Grazhdanskomu protsessual'nomu kodeksu RF [Commentaries to RF Civil Code]. Moscow. (in Russian)
Nechaeva V.I. (Ed.) (2008) Kommentariy k Grazhdanskomu protsessual'nomu kodeksu RF [Commentaries to RF Civil Code]. Moscow. (in Russian)
(2009) Kontseptsiya razvitiya grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva Rossiyskoy Federatsii (odobrena resheniem Soveta pri Prezidente RF po kodifikatsii i sovershenstvovaniyu grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva ot 07.10.2009)
Krokhalyov S.V. (2010) Kategoriya mezhdunarodnogo publichnogo poryadka v mezhdunarodnom grazhdanskom protsesse [Category of international Ordre Public in International Civil Process]. Moscow. (in Russian)
Kurzinski-Siger E., Davydenko V.L. (2009) Material'no pravovoy ordre public v rossiiskoy sudebnoy praktike po delam o priznanii i privedenii v ispolnenie ili otmene resheniy mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha. Zakon. Available at: http://www.iurisprudentia.ru/alternative/files/Ordre_public.pdf
Kurochkin S.A. (2008) Priznanie i privedenie v ispolnenie resheniy treteyskikh sudov i mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh arbitrazhey. Zakon, no 7.
Lunts L.A. (2002) Kurs mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava [Course of International Private Law]. Moscow. (in Russian)
Morosova Yu. G. (2001) Ogovorka o publichnom poryadke: teoreticheskie osnovaniya i praktika primeneniya v Rossii [Clause on Ordre Public: theory and case practice in Russia]. Arbitrazhnaya praktika, no 6.
Poyasnitel'naya zapiska k proektu Federal'nogo zakona «O vnesenii izmeneniy v chasti pervuyu, vtoruyu, tret'yu i chetvertuyu Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii, a takzhe v otdel'nye zakonodatel'nye akty Rossiyskoy Federatsii».
Predpolagaemye izmeneniya chasti tret'ey Grazhdanskogo kodeksa RF.
Traspov R.A. Mezhdunarodniy kommercheskiy arbitrazh: ponyatie i kriterii primeneniya ogovorki o publichnom poryadke [International Commercial Arbitration: a concept and criteria of applying Ordre Public clause].
Federal'nyy zakon ot 30.09.2013 № 260-FZ «O vnesenii izmeneniy v chast' tret'yu Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii» // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Khvesenya V.M. (2004) Rekomendatsii po primeneniyu publichnogo poryadka v kachestve osnovaniya dlya otkaza v priznanii ili privedenii v ispolnenie mezhdunarodnykh arbitrazhnykh resheniy [Recommendations on applying Ordre Public as a ground t oreject to implement international arbitration awards]. Mezhdunarodniy kommercheskiy arbityrazh, no 3.
Ancel B. (1989) Loi appliquée et effets en France de décisions étrangères. TCFDIP. 1986-1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/tcfdi.1989.973
Paris. (1998) Encycl. Dalloz Dr. Int., 2e éd., no 280.
Monéger F. et Pluyette G. (2012) Exequatur et principesessentiels du droitfrançai. Mélanges à la mémoire de Patrick Courbe. Dalloz.
Fouchard R., Gaillard E. et Goldman B. (1996) Traité de l'arbitrage commercial international. Litec. № 1710.
Fadlallah I. Note sous l'arrêt SNF c. Cytec (2008). Rev. Arb., spéc. p. 480.
Racine J.-B. (1999) L'arbitrage commercial international etl'ordre public. LGDJ.. n° 851, 867.
Mayer P. (2008) L'étendue du contrôle, par le jugeétatique, de la conformité des sentences arbitrales aux lois de police / Mélanges H. Gaudemet-Tallon. Dalloz.
Mayer P. (1994) La sentence contraire à l'ordre public au fond. Rev. Arb. 1994. n° 27, 29.
Bollée S. (2007) Les méthodes du droit international privé à l'épreuve des sentences arbitrales // Rev. Arb.. 103.
Bollée S. (2004) Les méthodes du droit international privé à l'épreuve des sentences arbitrales. Economica. no 234s.
Sandrock O. (2001) Gewöhnliche Fehler in Schiedsprüchen: Wann können sie zur Aufhebung des Schiedsspruchs führen? Betriebs-Berater. no 43.
Chantebout V. (2007) Le principe de non révision au fond des sentences arbitrales Thèse (dactyl.) Paris II.
Debourg V.C. (2012) Les contrariétés de décisionsdansl'arbitrage international. LGDJ.. № 347.
Van den Berg A.-J. (1999) Refusal of Enforcement under the New-York Convention 1958. ICC Bulletin1.. 86.
Van den Berg A.-J. (1981) The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958. Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation. Deventer.
Informatsionnoe pis'mo Prezidiuma Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii «Obzor praktiki rassmotreniya arbitrazhnymi sudami del o primenenii ogovorki o publichnom poryadke kak osnovaniya otkaza v priznanii i privedenii v ispolnenie inostrannykh sudebnykh i arbitrazhnykh resheniy» ot 26 fevralya 2013 g. № 156 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Opredelenie VAS RF ot 07.02.2008 № 575/08 po delu № A06-6957-2/2006 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Opredelenie VAS RF ot 06.12.2007 № 13452/07 po delu № A40-694/07-68-7 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus. Opredelenie VAS RF ot 26.07.2012 № VAS-6580/12 po delu № A40-119397/11-63-950 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Opredelenie Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 04.03.2002 № 34-G02-2 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Opredelenie Moskovskogo gorodskogo suda ot 6 aprelya 2011 g. po delu № 3m-11/3-2011 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Opredelenie Sudebnoy kollegii po grazhdanskim delam Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 23 avgusta 2002 g. po delu № 5-G02-98 // http://www.referent.ru/7/54941
Opredelenie Sudebnoy kollegii po grazhdanskim delam Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 25.09.1998 g. po delu № 5-G98-60 // http://sudbiblioteka.ru/vs/text_big1/verhsud_big_2144.htm
Postanovlenie Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 12.09.2006 № 4485/06 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Volgo-Vyatskogo okruga ot 25 maya 2006 g. po delu № A82-10555/2005-2-2 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Zapadno-Sibirskogo okruga ot 24 sentyabrya 2012 g. po delu № A45-19171/2012 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS MO ot 17 maya 2012 g. po delu № A41-21119/11 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS MO ot 23 iyulya 2012 g. po delu № A40-14982/12-68-133 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus. Postanovlenie FAS MO ot 23 noyabrya 2012 g. po delu № A40-66856/12-25-303 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS MO ot 3 aprelya 2003 g. po delu № KG-A40/1672 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS MO ot 18 noyabrya 2002 g. po delu № KG-A40/7628-02 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 14.02.2006 № A40-51576/05-60-397 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 14.02.2006 № KG-A40/247-06 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 15 aprelya 2004 g. po delu № KG-A40/2498-04 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 19 aprelya 2012 g. po delu № A40-119397/11-63-950 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 21 iyulya 2004 g. po delu № KG-A40/5789-04.
Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 26 iyulya 2004 g. po delu № KG-A40/5907-04 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 29 sentyabrya 2004 g. po delu № KG-A40/7948-04 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Zapadnogo okruga ot 16 yanvarya 2003 g. po delu № A66-8050/02 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Zapadnogo okruga ot 18 marta 2010 g. po delu № A56-82470/2009 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Zapadnogo okruga ot 18 sentyabrya 2009 g. po delu № A21-802/2009 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Zapadnogo okruga ot 28 dekabrya 2009 g. po delu № A21-802/2009 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS TsO ot 17 oktyabrya 2012 g. po delu N A35-3974/2012 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Postanovlenie FAS TsO ot 19 marta 2009 g. po delu № F10-770/09 // SPS Konsul'tant Plyus.
Cass. civ. 1, 08.07.2010, 08-21.740, Enfant Anna // Rev. Crit. DIP. 2010. 747, note P. Hammje; JDI. 2011. 119, note S. Bollée.
Cass. Civ. 1, 19 nov. 1991, StéGrandsMoulins de Strasbourg // Rev. Arb. 1992. 76, note L. Idot.
Cass. Civ. 1, 19.12.2012, 11-13.269 // Rev. Arb. 2013. 147, note A. Pinna.
Cass. civ. 1, 23 juin 2010, 08-16.858/09-12.399, StéMalincorp, D. 2010, pan. 2942, obs.: T. Clay.
Cass. Civ. 1, 25 oct. 2005, 02-13.252, Omenex c. Hugon, JDI 2006, 996, note F.-X. Train // Rev. Arb.
103, note J.-B. Racine, D. 2005, IR, 2822, D. 2006, 199, avis J. Sainte-Rose.
Cass. civ. 1, 30 janv. 2013, 11-10.588, Gazprombank, D. 2013, actu. 371 et pan. 2293, obs. L. A.
Cass. Civ. 1, 4 juin 2008, 06-15.320, SNF c. Cytec, JDI 2008, 1107, note A. Mourre // Rev. Arb. 2008. 473, note I. Fadlallah, D. 2008, pan. 2566, obs. L. d'Avout et S. Bollée, JCP G 2008, I, 164, obs. C. Seraglini, Gaz. Pal. 2009, 20-21 fév. 2009, n° 51-52, 32, note F.-X. Train, RTDCom 2008, p. 518, obs. E. Loquin.
Cass. Civ. 1, 4.06.2008, 06-15.320, SNF c. Cytec // Rev. Arb. 2008.spéc. 481.
Cass. Civ. 1, 6 mai 2009, 08-10.281, Mandatairesjudiciairesassociés c. International Company for Commercial Exchanges, D. 2009, AJ, 1422 et pan. 2968, obs. T. Clay // Rev. Arb. 2010. 299, note D. Cohen.
Cass. civ. 1, 8.07.2010, 09-67.013, HTC Sweden AB c. Doga // Rev. Crit. DIP 2010. 743, note D. Bureau et H. Muir Watt // Rev. Arb. 2010. 513, note R. Dupeyr é , D. 2010, 2884, note M. Audit et O. Cuperlier, pan. 2544, obs. N. D., et 2937, obs. T. Clay.
Cass. Com., 17 janv. 2006, 03-12.382 // Rev. Arb. 2007. 97, obs. S. Bollée.
CJCE, 11.05.2000, Regienationale des usines Renault SA c/ MaxicarSpA, aff. C-38/98: Europe, juill. 2000, comm. № 230.
Paris, 14.06.2001 // Rev. Arb. 2001. 773 note. C. Seraglini. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017362723201
Paris, 15.02.1996, SA Renosol France etautre c. Société Coverall North America // Rev. Arb. 2001, 805, 4e esp., obs. Y. Derains.
Paris, 23.10.2012, Sté Michel A. Chalhoub Inc. c. société Daum // Rev. Arb. 2013. 171, noteL. d'Avout.
Paris, 27.10.1994 // Rev. Arb. 1994.709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4267/10608/2690
Copyright (c) 2014 Law Journal of the Higher School of Economics

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.