Headnote

Arbitration – Interpretation of award

Summary of facts

The Petitioner requested the Court of First Instance to ratify an arbitration award issued in his favour. The Court of First Instance ratified the award. The Respondent appealed but the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal’s decision was also confirmed by the Court of Cassation. The Petitioner subsequently initiated a request for the enforcement of the award. The enforcement judge reverted to the arbitral tribunal for a decision interpreting the award. The Respondent initiated an action to annul the decision of the arbitral tribunal interpreting the award. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected the Respondent’s request. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition to cassation claiming, among other things, that the decision interpreting the award did not include the names and addresses of the parties.

Held

The decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned.

The decision interpreting the award is part of the award and as such has to comply with all the formal requirements with which the award has to comply.

Judgment

Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the execution judge shall have jurisdiction to enforce only the writ of execution and to issue related judgments, decisions and orders in all provisional enforcement disputes where a provisional remedy is sought in the form of a stay of enforcement without referring to the merits of the case.

On the other hand, if the relief sought relates to the merits of the case then the action would be a substantive action before the courts in which the execution judge’s role would only be to enforce the writ of execution of the court’s decision. If the decision was ambiguous or the reasons are not sufficiently particularized for the purpose of enforcement, the execution judge must direct the party seeking enforcement to the court that issued the decision in question to clarify any ambiguity. As such, disputes involving the clarification of a writ of execution are not enforcement disputes and are outside the jurisdiction of the execution judge.

A decision on the request for clarification and explanation of the arbitrators’ award was therefore considered a substantive matter and thus did not fall within the power of the execution judge under Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Code.

A decision interpreting an award is considered supplementary to the arbitral award. Awards must satisfy certain formal requirements. Court decisions must be issued based on a properly instituted proceeding that allows the parties to attend court and submit their defence and arguments and review and respond to documents, memoranda and reports filed in the proceeding in accordance with the principle of confrontation and the rights of defence. A decision must also be issued in the statutory form prescribed for decisions, stating the issuing court, the date and place of issue and the names of the participating judges. The decision must be issued in writing and signed and must state the first name, surname, capacity and domicile or place of work of the parties and include a summary of their requests for relief, comments and evidence. The decision must also be reasoned.

The interpretation decision of the arbitral tribunal does not satisfy the abovementioned formal requirements for decisions and was therefore void.

Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeal is overturned.