United States / 16 March 2010 / U.S. District Court, District of Columbia / G. E. Transp. S.P.A. (United States) v. Republic of Albania / 08-2042 (RMU)
Country | United States |
Court | United States, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia |
Date | 16 March 2010 |
Parties | G. E. Transp. S.P.A. (United States) v. Republic of Albania |
Case number | 08-2042 (RMU) |
Applicable NYC Provisions | VI | V |
Source |
693 F.Supp.2d 132, online: PACER |
Languages | English |
Summary | The Petitioners, G.E. Transport S.P.A. and Athena S.A (collectively, “G.E.”) entered into a contract with the Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Telecommunications of the Republic of Albania, (“Albania”) under which the Petitioners agreed to modernize a portion of Albania’s national railway network. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) in Rome. In a partial award dated 1 October 2007, the Arbitral Tribunal found in favour of G.E. and ordered Albania to pay damages. A final award was later rendered, ordering Albania to pay additional sums. Albania’s appeal to overturn the award before Italian courts was dismissed on an interim basis. G.E. sought confirmation of the award in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the NYC and subsequently filed an amended petition. After Albania failed to respond within the prescribed time limit of the amended petition, the Clerk of the Court entered a default judgment for G.E. G.E then asked the Court to confirm the award and enter the default judgment against Albania. The District Court confirmed the arbitral award. The Court stated that federal courts only have subject matter jurisdiction over foreign states under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Having satisfied itself that the arbitration exception to the FSIA applied to the case (noting, in particular, that Italy, Albania and the United States were signatories of the NYC), the Court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction. The Court held that none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition listed in Article V NYC were present in the case. As to Article VI NYC, the District Court held that it had the discretion to defer confirmation of an arbitration award if there was a pending annulment action in another jurisdiction, but found an adjournment of the proceedings unwarranted. It then concluded that the NYC authorized confirmation of the arbitral award. |
see also : |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |