Examples of using Valid arbitration in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
A valid arbitration agreement is not required.
It found that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement.
Upon request of all parties, and if a valid arbitration agreement exists, the Board shall appoint the conciliator as sole arbitrator.
The statutes of the"honorary board" did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement.
Specifically, enforcement was refused due to the lack of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties under the law of the country where the award was made.
The Court, however, rejected all the respondent's defences,since it deemed a valid arbitration agreement to exist.
The arbitral tribunal found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, in accordance with article 7(1) of the Model Law.
The respondent objected,invoking the Polish judgment and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement.
If the award was issued without a valid arbitration agreement between the parties;
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court first rejected the argument of the claimant concerning the existence of a valid arbitration clause.
The Polish Courts, however, refused enforcement,pointing out the lack of a valid arbitration agreement fulfilling the form requirements of article II of the New York Convention.
This provision allows governments to limit the ability of"legal persons of public law", such as government departments,to conclude valid arbitration agreements.
The Court granted both applications,holding that for both decisions there was no valid arbitration agreement upon which the board could base its jurisdiction.
The proposal does not therefore seek to modify the Law of States as to whether governmental agencies have the right to conclude valid arbitration agreements.
It contended that the"honorary board" was not an arbitral tribunal and that there was no valid arbitration agreement pursuant to§ 1029 ZPO, based on article MAL 7, as a basis for its decision.
Rather it was suggested that interpretation of business practices had changed,for example in terms of what might be required to conclude a valid arbitration agreement.
The Court held that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement despite the referral to a non-existing arbitration institution since it was possible to determine through interpretation a particular arbitration institution.
The Court refused to make the appointment since, in its view, no valid arbitration agreement existed.
If a judicial proceeding is initiated contrary to the valid arbitration clause, the interested party can ask a court to direct the parties to arbitration, since the matter at issue is a subject of the arbitration agreement.
The question to be decided by the court of appeal was whether the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement, pursuant to article 7(1) MAL.
However, once the court is satisfied that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and that it complies with the requirements of both the Federal Arbitration Act and the Convention, the Supreme Court held that the presumption reverses in favour of the arbitral tribunal.
The appellant opposed enforcement on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had found that there was no valid arbitration agreement binding the respondent.
In proceedings to have a Belgian award declared enforceable in Germany,the Higher Regional Court in Cologne ordered the applicant to furnish proof of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement as provided under article II 1958"New York" Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards(hereinafter'NYC')(article 7 MAL), by submitting the arbitration agreement in the form required by article IV(1)(b) and IV(2) NYC article 35(1) and(2) MAL.
The Court found that, on the basis of the old German arbitration law(applicable to all agreements concluded before 1998),that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement.
According to the Court,§ 1059 Abs. 2 Nr. 1(a), based on article 34(2)(a)(i) MAL,is only applicable to cases where there is no valid arbitration agreement, not to cases where the tribunal erroneously considers not to have jurisdiction.
In the arbitration proceedings between the parties,the claimant requested the tribunal to declare that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter because of the lack of a valid arbitration agreement.
According to the court, contrary to the allegation of the claimant,the defendant was not precluded from raising the lack of a valid arbitration agreement, though it had not challenged the award for lack of jurisdiction under section 67 Arbitration Act 1996 in the English courts.
The question arises whether, at the pre-award stage, in complying with their obligation to refer the parties to arbitration pursuant to article II(3), national courts could conduct a full ora limited review of the arbitration agreement to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.
The case concerned the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award,in particular the defences of"lack of a valid arbitration agreement" and"violation of public policy.
The dispute arising out of a challenge of a preliminary ruling in which the arbitral tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction concerns the conclusion of a formally valid arbitration agreement on the basis of a trade usage.
