Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the setting aside of an award that has been enforced in another jurisdiction or vice versa?
International Arbitration (3rd edition)
To the best of our knowledge there have been no such recent decisions.
There have been several attempts by the former majority shareholders in Yukos to enforce three arbitral awards issued in July 2014, by attaching Russian assets located in France, despite the award having been set aside by The Hague District Court on 20 April 2016. In the latest ruling (Paris Court of Appeal, 27 June 2017, Case 459/17), the Paris Court of Appeal decided to lift attachments on funds owed by French company Arianespace to Russian space agency Roscosmos, on the ground that the latter was legally independent from the Russian state. However, the court also made it clear that The Hague District Court’s annulment decision may not prevent the enforcement of the awards in France, by virtue of the principles of autonomy of international arbitration law, and the relative effect attached to a decision setting aside a foreign arbitral award.
Relevant is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case INTERSPUTNIK INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF SPACE COMMUNICATIONS (298/2013) dated 7/4/2017. The Supreme Court overruled the judgment of the District Court, by deciding that the setting aside of an arbitration award for not presenting the original and/or copy of the original award was erroneous. The Supreme Court explained the meaning of “the duly authenticated original award” by stating "..The authentication of a document is the formality by which the signature thereon is attested to be genuine. The certification of a copy is the formality by which the copy is attested to be true copy of the original."
We are unaware of any such recent decision.
As per the publicly available information, there have not been any recent court decisions in Romania considering the setting aside of an award that has been enforced in another jurisdiction or vice versa.
To our best knowledge, there have not been such court decisions in Serbia.
There has been no decision made by Chinese courts considering the enforcement of an award that has been set aside in the country where the award was rendered. Conversely, there was a case ruled by the High Court of Berlin in 2006 where the court enforced an award that has been set aside by Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court.
a. No such decisions have been published in the official law journals, and we are not aware of any other decisions on the subject.
There is no such case law available in the public domain.
To our knowledge, the Swiss Federal Tribunal has not yet decided on the question of whether an award that has been set aside in another jurisdiction may nevertheless be enforced or vice versa. As regards enforcement proceedings in Switzerland governed by the New York Convention, art. V para 1(e) stipulates that a party can object to the enforcement of an award, inter alia, if the award has been set aside by a competent authority in the country of its origin. In addition, the Swiss Federal Tribunal has held in recent cases that the recognition and enforcement of an award does not aim at attributing to the award any other effects than those already pertaining to the award in its state of origin.
There has been no recent decisions on the setting aside of arbitral awards enforced in a different jurisdiction. Foreign arbitral awards which seek enforcement in the UAE, are subject to the requirements of Article V of the New York Convention.
As previously indicated, the Joint Judicial Committee has however been established to deal with amongst other issues, jurisdictional conflicts between the DIFC Courts and Dubai Courts.
On 27 July 2017, the English Commercial Court dismissed an application to enforce a Russian arbitral award that had been set aside by the Russian Commercial Court (Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company OJSC (Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat)  EWHC 1911 (Comm)).
The Court held that an applicant must not only prove that a foreign court’s decisions were wrong or manifestly wrong, but that they were so perverse that they could not have been arrived at in good faith or otherwise than by bias.
Yes, if such an award was not in compliance with the principles of Shariah or public law.
Two recent Second Circuit cases have dealt with situations in which parties tried to enforce awards that had been annulled at the seat of arbitration. In the Pemex and Thai-Lao Lignite cases, from 2016 and 2017 respectively, the Second Circuit held that U.S. courts have discretion to enforce an award that has been annulled at the seat of arbitration. See Corporacion Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Pemex-Exploracion y Produccion, 832 F.3d 92, 107 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. dismissed, 137 S. Ct. 1622 (2017); Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov’t of Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 864 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2017).
In the Pemex case, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award in the U.S., even though a Mexican court had nullified the award. The Court acknowledged that the Panama Convention, which is codified in the FAA, affords discretion to U.S. courts to enforce an arbitral award that has been annulled at the seat of arbitration. The Court held that the exercise of a court’s discretion is appropriate under a limited public policy exception in order to protect fundamental notions of what is decent and just in the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought.
In the Thai-Lao Lignite case, the Second Circuit again acknowledged the discretion of the court and the public policy exception to recognizing an annulment at the seat of arbitration, but found that the annulling court’s decision did not offend basic notions of what is decent and just.
In both cases, the Court warned that courts should generally be very reluctant to enforce annulled arbitral awards. As evidenced by Pemex and Thai-Lao Lignite, the threshold parties must reach to convince a court to enforce an award annulled at the seat of arbitration is quite high.
There is no such recent decision.
There are no such decisions. However, arbitral awards will be set aside by courts provided there are good grounds for such setting aside as provided in the law.
A recent decision issued by the Appeal Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 14 March 2017 denied the recognition of an arbitral award granted by a Spanish tribunal essentially due to violation of the principles of international public policy of the Portuguese State.
In 2009 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal enforced the four Yukos v. Rosneft awards that had been set aside in Russia in 2007, finding that the Russian courts lacked sufficient independence and impartiality.
In addition, in the case No. А27-781/2011, Russian courts initially enforced — referring to Article IX of the Geneva Convention — an award that had been set aside in Turkey in 2011 on the grounds that the tribunal breached the deadline for rendering the award, went beyond the scope of its mandate in considering the case and violated Turkish public policy. However, subsequently, the decision on enforcement was overturned on the basis that the contract that was the subject of the arbitral proceedings had been voided by a final and binding Russian court judgment.
In 2014, the Irish High Court was asked to assume jurisdiction to hear proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitral award made by the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC in New York. The applicant was a Luxembourg company which had loaned monies to the respondent, a Russian company jointly owned by Rosneft and Gazprom. Attempts by the applicant to have the arbitral award enforced in Russia and France had failed, and were ongoing in Singapore. The court refused to assume jurisdiction, and it set aside previous orders permitting service of the proceedings outside Ireland, on the basis that the respondent was in Russia, had no assets in Ireland, and the situation was unlikely to change. The court could not see any practical benefit to the arbitral award being enforced in Ireland. It was also held that it would be unjust to require the respondent to defend a fourth attempt to enforce the award. (Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v Oao Tomskneft Vnk  IEHC 115)
Generally, courts will not enforce foreign awards even if they had been set aside at the seat of arbitration. This practice is in line with Article V (1) (e) of the New York Convention.
An exception, though, applies where the state in which the foreign award was set aside is a member state of the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961. The Federal High Court (Bundesgerichtshof) has ruled that this convention excludes the applicability of the above general rule and that a foreign award that had been set aside on the basis of a public policy that is not recognized in Germany will nonetheless be recognized and enforced in Germany.
Generally, a party resisting enforcement of an arbitral award in Germany may request the stay of proceedings pending parallel proceedings to set aside the foreign award in the country of origin of the arbitration award. German courts are not bound to such request but may continue and declare the foreign award enforceable if – in the court's view – the alleged grounds for setting aside the arbitral award hold no merit.
No recent developments have been observed. Croatian national courts rarely set aside arbitral awards because the reasons are rather restricted.
There is no recent case law in Chile regarding the setting aside of an award that has been enforce in another jurisdiction or vice versa.