Privačioji akcinė bendrovė Charkovo staklių gamykla v. UAB „Žaibas“

At a glance

Parties

Privačioji akcinė bendrovė Charkovo staklių gamykla (applicant, award creditor) v. UAB „Žaibas“ (interested party, award debtor)

Case no.

Civil case No. e2T-46-381/2019 (court process No. 2-60-3-00035-2019-1)

Court

Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania), Civil Division, Vilnius

Underlying award(s)

Award of 31 May 2018 of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, case No. 8/2018

Forum and rules

Recognition and enforcement under the 1958 New York Convention, Lithuanian Code of Civil Procedure and Law on Commercial Arbitration

Treaty

New York Convention 1958 (Articles III, IV(1), V(1), V(2))

Court

Artūras Driukas (presiding and rapporteur), Marius Bajoras, Vigintas Višinskis

Sector

Sale of goods

Outcome

The award was recognised and declared enforceable in Lithuania (16 April 2019).

Amount

Award enforced: EUR 24,777.18 (EUR 17,997 debt for goods, EUR 4,249.70 penalty, EUR 2,530.48 arbitration fee). Costs of the court case awarded to the applicant: EUR 305 (EUR 125.10 of translation costs refused).

The dispute

Charkovo staklių gamykla, a Ukrainian private joint-stock company, supplied goods to the Lithuanian company UAB „Žaibas“ under contract No. 4-2017/CXT of 21 March 2017. Clause 10.2 of that contract referred disputes to the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. On 31 May 2018 that court ordered Žaibas to pay EUR 24,777.18: the unpaid price for the goods, a penalty for late payment, and the arbitration fee. The seller applied to the Court of Appeal of Lithuania to recognise and enforce the award under the New York Convention. Žaibas received notice of the application but filed no response and raised no defences.

Key holdings

1. The Court reviews an award only on the exhaustive grounds in Article V of the New York Convention. It may not re-examine the merits, the facts, the evidence or the arbitrators' application of the law. ¶ 6
2. The applicant met Article IV(1). It filed certified copies of the award and of the contract containing the arbitration clause, with certified Lithuanian translations. It also filed a certificate from the arbitral institution confirming that Žaibas had been notified of every stage of the arbitration. ¶ 10
3. The party resisting enforcement bears the burden of proving the Article V(1) grounds. Žaibas filed no response, so the Court did not examine those grounds. ¶ 11
4. The Court checked the Article V(2) grounds of its own motion. A dispute over the price of goods, a late-payment penalty and arbitration fees can be arbitrated under Lithuanian law, and enforcing the award does not violate Lithuanian public policy. ¶ 12
5. The award was recognised and declared enforceable for the full EUR 24,777.18. ¶ 13; operative part
6. Costs: the Court awarded EUR 305, made up of EUR 200 in legal fees (within the maximum rates recommended for advocates) and EUR 105 for translations by UAB „Oltena“. It refused EUR 125.10 paid to „Lingmaks“, because the evidence did not show that this payment was for translations used in this case. ¶¶ 14–15

Procedural history

1. 21 March 2017The parties sign contract No. 4-2017/CXT, whose clause 10.2 provides for arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
2. 31 May 2018The arbitral court issues its award in case No. 8/2018, ordering Žaibas to pay EUR 24,777.18.
3. 26 March 2019The Court of Appeal of Lithuania sends Žaibas notice of the enforcement application by registered post; it is delivered on 28 March 2019. Žaibas files no response by the 11 April 2019 deadline.
4. 16 April 2019The Court of Appeal recognises the award, declares it enforceable in Lithuania and awards the applicant EUR 305 in costs. The ruling took effect on the day it was made and could be appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of Lithuania within 30 days.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Artūras Driukas Judge, Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (presiding judge and rapporteur)
• Marius Bajoras Judge, Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas
• Vigintas Višinskis Judge, Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• recognition and enforcement
• Lithuania
• Ukraine
• ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• Article V(2) ex officio review
• public policy
• arbitrability
• burden of proof Article V(1)
• Article IV documentary requirements
• no review of merits
• sale of goods
• late payment penalty
• default of respondent
• litigation costs
• Charkovo staklių gamykla

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.