Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on March 19, 2002


Appeal No.: 99-19878
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Lemontey. Rapporteur: Mr. Lemontey. Advocate General: M. Sainte-Rose. Lawyers: Bouzidi CPC, CPA and Piwnica Molina.



Whereas the company Romana Air Transport (TAROM) concluded February 9, 1985 with the Lebanese society The Levant Shipping Agency (Khayat) a contract of exclusive representation in Lebanon is a dispute arose as to the conditions of termination, Khayat society in 1996, implemented the arbitration clause stipulated in the agreement, referring to the arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Bucharest that the Khayat, believing this clause impracticable because of changes in Romania, before the House Commerce (ICC), on the basis of Article 10 of the International trade and payments made December 6, 1980 between Lebanon and Romania, as the company Tarom has challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC, the arbitrator issued May 29, 1997 a partial award recognizing its jurisdiction on the grounds that the arbitration clause, unable to be implemented, was invalid, so the dispute was subject to the rules of common law dispute resolution contained in the Agreement of December 6, 1980, Article 10 refers to the ICC as an institution of arbitration;

The first plea in its three branches:

Whereas Khayat complains that the judgment (Paris, June 1, 1999) have set aside the sentence, ruling on grounds irrelevant as to the acquiescence in the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, manifested by the company Tarom participate fully in the prosecution of the arbitration proceedings;

But given that the annulment was not intended to suspend the arbitration proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the company exactly Tarom could defend on the merits without being deemed to have waived its jurisdictional objection, from when it was stipulated that the company had from the outset, challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and had persisted in this challenge to the award ruling on this point , that the plea is unfounded;


The second and third pleas, and taken together their various branches:

Whereas it is still criticized the Court of Appeal, 1 ° to have based its decision on the contract produced in English, then the judge may rule on parts written in French, 2o have misconstrued the award, and 3o have dismissed Article 10 of the Agreement between Lebanon and Romania, while it was in the absence of will of the parties to derogate from the common law legal relations between Lebanon and Romania provided for ICC arbitration in Paris, and that this agreement was binding, especially for the company Tarom state corporation;

 But whereas only the willingness of contractors has the power to invest the arbiter of judicial power, that the Court of Appeal, which held the lack of common consent of the contracting parties to the interstate provision of the Agreement of 6 December 1980 providing for ICC arbitration, has just concluded whatever might be the mandatory nature of this Agreement in the domestic Romanian whom he had yet been waived in the contract of 1985 there is no arbitration agreement in As part of the ICC;


It has, without incurring criticism means, legally justified its decision;

For these reasons:

Dismiss the appeal.

Publication: Bulletin 2002 I No. 94 p. 73 The contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, 1999-06-01


Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 37.


%d bloggers like this: