## Facts

- An Italian company, Abati Legnami, and an Austrian party, Fritz Häupl, entered a commercial contract with an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Vienna under the Vienna Commodity Exchange.
- A dispute was submitted to arbitration seated in Vienna.
- Abati received a summons on August 11, 1981, to appear at a hearing scheduled for September 8, 1981.
- Abati argued the notice period largely overlapped with Italy’s customary August vacation period, during which many offices close and many judicial deadlines are suspended (generally August 1 to September 15).
- The Vienna tribunal proceeded and issued an award in favor of Häupl.
- Häupl sought recognition and enforcement of the award in Italy before the Milan Court of Appeal.
- The Milan Court of Appeal granted recognition and enforcement, finding the notice period sufficient.
- Abati appealed to the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, invoking New York Convention Article V(1)(b).

## Issues

1. Whether recognition and enforcement should be refused under New York Convention Article V(1)(b) because the August 11 to September 8 notice period was allegedly insufficient, given Italy’s August vacation practices, such that Abati was “unable to present its case.”
2. Whether domestic procedural customs (including court-vacation suspensions of time limits) can define “proper notice” or inability to be heard for an arbitration seated abroad under Article V(1)(b).

## Decision

- The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed Abati’s appeal and affirmed enforcement of the award.
- The court rejected the Article V(1)(b) defense, holding that the approximately four-week notice was sufficient.
- The court held that Italy’s domestic vacation period and suspension of judicial deadlines did not, by itself, render notice improper or establish that Abati was unable to present its case.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York Convention Article V(1)(b), the party resisting enforcement bears the burden to prove lack of proper notice or a serious impairment of the ability to present its case.
- Article V defenses are construed narrowly; inconvenience or generalized difficulty is insufficient without a concrete showing of prejudice.
- “Proper notice” and the opportunity to be heard are assessed by internationally oriented standards tied to the arbitration proceedings (including the seat’s procedural expectations), not by importing the respondent’s domestic court-calendar practices.
- Domestic suspensions of judicial time limits (such as an August court-vacation period) do not automatically extend or control notice requirements in a foreign-seated international arbitration.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Vienna arbitral award in Italy, ruling that a four-week summons period was adequate and that Italy’s customary August vacation and related domestic deadline suspensions did not satisfy Article V(1)(b) absent proof that the respondent was actually prevented from presenting its case.


Abati Legnami (It.) v. Häupl, 17 Y.B. Com. Arb. 529 (It. Cass. 1992)