Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV
European Court of Justice
Case No. C-126/97, [1999] E.C.R. I-3055 (1999)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In July 1986, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd (Eco Swiss) (defendant) and Benetton International NV (Benetton) (plaintiff) entered a licensing agreement that granted Eco Swiss the rights to manufacture watches and clocks bearing Benetton’s name. Article 26 of the licensing agreement provided the parties would settle all disputes arising between the parties in arbitration under the rules of the Netherlands Institute of Arbitrators. In June 1991, Benetton gave notice of termination of the agreement, and the parties engaged in arbitration on the termination of the agreement. In February 1993, the arbitral tribunal entered a preliminary award directing Benetton to compensate Eco Swiss for the damages Eco Swiss suffered as a result of Benetton’s termination of the licensing agreement. When the parties failed to come to an agreement on the quantum of damages, the arbitrators entered a final arbitral award with the Rechtbank, the relevant Dutch District Court. Benetton applied to the Rechtbank for the annulment of the final arbitral award, arguing the arbitration awards were contrary to public policy because the licensing agreement was null under Article 85 of the European Community Treaty (EC Treaty). The Rechtbank dismissed Benetton’s application, and Benetton appealed to the appropriate Dutch appellate courts. The Dutch appellate courts referred the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), asking the ECJ to determine the validity of Benetton’s motion for the annulment of the arbitration award.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.