Judgment of 23 April 2004
Cologne Higher Regional Court
XXX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 557 (2005)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 2000, a German company (defendant) entered a series of contracts for the purchase of viscose fibers with an Israeli company (plaintiff). The contracts contained an arbitration clause, providing for arbitration of any disputes before the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC). A dispute arose between the parties after the German company failed to pay under the contracts. The Israeli company initiated legal proceedings with a justice of the peace in Tel Aviv, Israel. The German company objected to the jurisdiction of the Israeli court, citing the arbitration clause within the contracts. The matter was then referred to arbitration before the ICAC, which held three arbitral proceedings. The Israeli company filed a statement of claim in June 2001, and the German company filed a reply in September 2001. The German company also filed a further statement in addition to its reply. The arbitral tribunal held an oral hearing with the parties and parties’ counsel in December 2001. In February 2002, the arbitrators rendered three awards in favor of the Israeli company. The Israeli company then filed suit in Germany, seeking enforcement of one of the awards in Germany. The German defendant opposed enforcement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.