## Facts

- A dispute arose between a Croatian company (plaintiff/appellant) and a Swiss company (defendant/appellee) under an international commercial relationship that was referred to arbitration.
- The parties’ dispute was submitted to arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Switzerland.
- The arbitration was conducted pursuant to Swiss procedural law.
- The arbitral tribunal applied Croatian substantive law to the merits.
- The tribunal rendered an arbitral award in favor of the Swiss company.
- The Croatian company applied to a commercial county court in Croatia seeking to set aside (annul) the arbitral award.
- The commercial county court refused to set aside the award, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction because the award was rendered in Switzerland under Swiss procedural law and thus fell within the Swiss legal system.
- The Croatian company appealed to the High Commercial Court of Croatia.
- On appeal, the Croatian company argued that the New York Convention applied and that Croatian courts had jurisdiction because Croatian substantive law was applied in the arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether Croatian courts have jurisdiction to set aside an ICC arbitral award rendered in Switzerland under Swiss procedural law, where the tribunal applied Croatian substantive law.
2. Whether the New York Convention supports Croatian jurisdiction to annul a Swiss-seated arbitral award based on the use of Croatian substantive law.

## Decision

- The Croatian commercial county court declined to set aside the ICC award for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the Swiss seat and Swiss procedural law as placing the award within the Swiss legal system.
- The Croatian company appealed that refusal to the High Commercial Court of Croatia, invoking the New York Convention and the application of Croatian substantive law.
- Publicly available summaries confirm the lower court’s jurisdictional refusal and the arguments raised on appeal, but they do not disclose the High Commercial Court’s final disposition or reasoning in detail.

## Legal Principles

- As reflected in available summaries, Croatian annulment jurisdiction was treated by the lower court as linked to the arbitral seat and the procedural law governing the arbitration, rather than to the substantive law applied to the merits.
- The application of Croatian substantive law in a foreign-seated arbitration was argued by the appellant to supply a jurisdictional basis under the New York Convention, but the lower court’s approach treated the award as subject to the legal system of the seat (Switzerland) for purposes of set-aside control.
- The dispute highlights the distinction between (a) supervisory control over an award (typically associated with the seat and the arbitration’s procedural law) and (b) choice of substantive law for deciding the merits.

## Conclusion

Croatian Company v. Swiss Company concerns a Swiss-seated ICC award issued under Swiss procedural law while applying Croatian substantive law, followed by an attempt to annul the award in Croatia; the Croatian commercial county court declined jurisdiction on the ground that the award belonged to the Swiss legal system, and the Croatian company appealed to the High Commercial Court arguing that the New York Convention and the use of Croatian substantive law supported Croatian jurisdiction.


Croatian Company v. Swiss Company, 2 Croat. Arb. Y.B. 205 (1995)