## Facts

- In 2000, a German company (defendant/award debtor) entered into a series of contracts to purchase viscose fibers from an Israeli company (plaintiff/award creditor).
- Each contract contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC) in Moscow.
- A dispute arose after the German buyer failed to pay amounts claimed by the Israeli seller under the contracts.
- The Israeli seller initially commenced proceedings before a justice of the peace in Tel Aviv, Israel.
- The German buyer objected to the Israeli court’s jurisdiction, relying on the arbitration clause in the parties’ contracts.
- The dispute was then pursued in arbitration before the ICAC, which conducted three arbitral proceedings between the parties.
- The seller submitted its statement of claim in June 2001.
- The buyer submitted its reply in September 2001 and also filed an additional written statement.
- The arbitral tribunal held an oral hearing in December 2001, with both parties participating through counsel.
- In February 2002, the arbitral tribunal issued three awards in favor of the Israeli seller.
- The seller later sought recognition and enforcement in Germany of one of those ICAC awards.
- The German buyer opposed recognition and enforcement before the Cologne Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht Köln).

## Issues

1. Whether the ICAC arbitral award could be recognized and enforced in Germany under the 1958 New York Convention and the applicable German enforcement procedure.
2. Whether the German buyer established any ground to refuse enforcement under Article V of the New York Convention, including objections concerning the arbitration agreement and the fairness of the arbitral proceedings (notice and ability to present its case).

## Decision

- The Cologne Higher Regional Court granted recognition and enforcement of the ICAC award in Germany.
- The court rejected the German buyer’s defenses and found no basis for refusal under the New York Convention.
- The court treated the enforcement review as limited and did not revisit the merits of the contractual payment dispute decided by the tribunal.

## Legal Principles

- Under the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is the general rule; refusal is limited to the grounds listed in Article V.
- The party resisting enforcement bears the burden of proving a Convention ground for refusal.
- A party that participated in the arbitration by submitting written pleadings and appearing at an oral hearing will generally have difficulty showing it lacked proper notice or was unable to present its case within the meaning of Article V(1)(b).
- Prior court proceedings initiated by a party do not, without more, prevent later enforcement of an award rendered pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement; the enforcement court focuses on the award and the Convention defenses actually established.
- The enforcing court does not function as an appellate body over the arbitral tribunal; it does not re-examine factual findings or legal conclusions, absent a proven Article V ground.
- The public-policy defense (ordre public) is construed narrowly and applies only to serious conflicts with fundamental principles of the enforcing state.

## Conclusion

The Cologne Higher Regional Court enforced in Germany an ICAC (Moscow) award arising from viscose‑fiber sales contracts between an Israeli seller and a German buyer, holding that the buyer’s objections—despite earlier Israeli court proceedings and despite challenges framed under the New York Convention—did not meet the Convention’s narrow grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement.


Judgment of 23 April 2004, XXX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 557 (2005)