## Facts

- A German company (WTB) and an Italian cooperative (CREI) entered a construction contract containing an arbitration clause.
- CREI sent WTB a notice terminating the contract and initiated arbitration to obtain a declaration ending the contractual relationship.
- WTB counterclaimed, alleging wrongful termination and seeking damages.
- The arbitral tribunal issued (1) a 1988 partial award determining liability and finding CREI liable for wrongful termination, and (2) a 1989 award fixing the amount of damages.
- The 1989 award referenced the 1988 partial award but did not restate the earlier award’s liability findings or reasoning.
- WTB sought recognition and enforcement in Italy of only the 1989 damages award and did not submit a certified copy of the 1988 partial award.
- The first-instance Italian court refused enforcement, reasoning the 1989 award was incomplete without the earlier liability award.
- WTB appealed to the Italian Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may recognize and enforce a damages award that depends on, and incorporates by reference, an earlier partial liability award when the creditor submits only the later award.
2. Whether omission of the earlier partial award renders the submitted award too incomplete to qualify for exequatur.
3. Whether documentary production requirements for enforcement are satisfied when part of the tribunal’s operative determinations appear only in an unsubmitted, interdependent award.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the refusal to grant exequatur.
- It treated the 1988 liability award and the 1989 damages award as interdependent parts of the tribunal’s complete disposition.
- Because WTB did not produce the earlier partial award, the court concluded it lacked the full arbitral decision necessary to evaluate and enforce the monetary award.

## Legal Principles

- When a later arbitral award on damages expressly relies on an earlier partial award on liability, the enforcing party must submit all interdependent awards required to understand the tribunal’s operative determinations.
- A court may deny enforcement where the materials filed do not present the complete arbitral decision and therefore prevent meaningful review of potential refusal grounds.
- Compliance with enforcement-document requirements is assessed in light of whether the submitted award(s) contain the full operative content of what is sought to be recognized and enforced.

## Conclusion

The Italian Court of Appeal refused to enforce the damages award because it was not self-contained and depended on an earlier liability award that the creditor neither sought to enforce nor filed; without the interdependent partial award, the court deemed the request incomplete and denied exequatur.


WTB (Ger.) v. CREI (It.), 21 Y.B. Com. Arb. 590 (It. Ct. App. 1996)