Ομοσπονδιακή Κρατική Ενιαία Εταιρία “Πανρωσική Τηλεοπτική Ραδιοφωνική Εταιρία” (Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Pan-Russian Television and Radio Company”) v. Trevano Pictures Limited

At a glance

Parties

Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Pan-Russian Television and Radio Company" (Moscow, Russia) v. Trevano Pictures Limited (Limassol, Cyprus)

Case no.

Foreign General Application No. 2/19 (ECLI:CY:EDLEM:2019:A480)

Court

District Court of Limassol, Cyprus (E. Efraim, President of the District Court)

Forum and rules

Application for recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention, ratified in Cyprus by Law 84/79

Underlying award(s)

Two awards dated 23 January 2017, Nos. 47/16 and 49/16, of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

Sector

Film and television licensing

Outcome

Application granted. Both awards were recognised, registered and declared enforceable in Cyprus.

Amount

Award 47/16: USD 812,164.50 (licence fees and penalty) plus USD 22,576 (administrative fee). Award 49/16: USD 1,005,000 (licence fees and penalty) plus USD 24,716 (administrative fee). Costs of the application awarded to the applicant, plus VAT.

The dispute

The applicant, a Russian federal state broadcaster, entered into two agreements with the Cypriot company Trevano Pictures Limited: Agreement No. 33/3000 of 21 September 2010 and Agreement No. 447/3000 of 23 April 2013. Under them Trevano received licences to use intellectual property, television series and films in return for agreed fees. Both agreements were governed by Russian law and referred disputes to the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Trevano did not pay the licence fees, although in a letter of 4 September 2015 it had acknowledged its debt under Agreement 447/3000. The arbitration court issued two awards against it on 23 January 2017. The applicant then sought recognition and enforcement in Cyprus. Trevano objected on several grounds: the documents were not properly certified or translated; the agreements were invalid under Russian law; it had not received proper notice; the awards went beyond the arbitration clauses; the subject matter could not be arbitrated; and enforcement was contrary to Cypriot public policy.

Key holdings

1. Law 84/79, which ratifies the New York Convention, governs the application. As a ratified treaty it prevails over the International Commercial Arbitration Law 101/87. Law 121(I)/00 only sets out the procedure and does not itself give the court its power. pp. 2–3
2. The Article IV requirements were met. A Moscow notary had certified the copies of the awards, and the notary's signature was authenticated by a Hague Convention apostille. The Greek translations certified by the Press and Information Office are official translations, because the Council of Ministers designated that Office as the competent service for certified translations. A duty to produce the arbitration agreement means producing the whole contract that contains the clause. pp. 8–11
3. Article V(1)(a) does not apply. Trevano's arguments on capacity, missing invoices, an excessive penalty and changed circumstances under Russian law concern the validity of the main licence agreements, not of the arbitration clauses, which are separable. The court cannot review whether the awards are correct on the merits. pp. 11–12
4. Trevano was properly notified and in fact took part in the arbitration. It filed objections to jurisdiction and to the appointment of the arbitrator, and asked for adjournment and for a stay. Its objection that the clauses covered only disputes about interpretation also failed: the broad wording covers all disputes arising from the agreements, including payment disputes. pp. 12–14
5. The awards are final and binding. Statements from the applicant's Russian lawyers proved this, and Trevano did not dispute them. Under Cypriot law, a dispute over licence fees and penalties is a commercial matter that can be arbitrated. The argument that negotiations were not finished had already been raised and decided in the arbitration. pp. 14–15
6. Enforcement does not breach Cypriot public policy, a ground the court reads narrowly. The applicant's status as a Russian-based entity does not prevent it from applying in Cyprus. The application was granted, with costs against Trevano. pp. 16–19

Procedural history

1. 21 September 2010Licence Agreement No. 33/3000 concluded.
2. 23 April 2013Licence Agreement No. 447/3000 concluded.
3. 4 September 2015Trevano acknowledged in a letter its debt under Agreement 447/3000.
4. 14 December 2016Hearing session in the arbitration. The arbitrator found that the parties had exhausted the possibilities of amicable settlement.
5. 23 January 2017The International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation issued Awards Nos. 47/16 and 49/16.
6. 28 January 2019Application for recognition and enforcement filed in the District Court of Limassol.
7. 4 October 2019The District Court of Limassol granted the application and ordered recognition, registration and enforcement of both awards.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• E. Efraim Judge, District Court of Limassol

For the claimant

M. Christofi & Co LLC

For the respondent

Χαβιαράς & Φιλίππου Δ.Ε.Π.Ε.

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• recognition and enforcement
• Cyprus
• Law 84/79
• ICAC Russia
• Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation
• film licensing
• television rights
• apostille
• certified translation
• Press and Information Office
• separability
• arbitrability
• public policy
• proper notice
• Article V
• Article IV

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