In a landmark decision issued on 13/11/2024 in UNITECH LIMITED v. CRUZ CITY 1 MAURITIUS HOLDINGS, Πολιτική Έφεση Αρ. 49/2016, 13/11/2024, the Supreme Court of Cyprus dismissed an appeal solidifying the enforcement of a London-based arbitral award in Cyprus.

The Supreme Court provided clarity on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention and resolved ambiguities regarding the role of domicile and jurisdiction in arbitration enforcement, marking a significant step in harmonizing Cypriot law with international arbitration standards.

Background

The Applicant filed an application to register and enforce an arbitral award issued by the London Court of International Arbitration in 2012.

The award, based on a dispute involving international parties, was sought for enforcement in Cyprus under Law 84/1979, which ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the “New York Convention”) into Cypriot law.

The Respondent opposed the registration, citing the parties' foreign dom iciles and provisions under the Foreign Courts’ Judgments (Recognition, Registration and Enforcement by Convention) Law of 2000 (Law No. 121(I)/2000) concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.

Key Legal Issues

1. Jurisdiction and Domicile: The Respondent argued that the absence of a jurisdictional nexus, such as the domicile of either party in Cyprus, precluded the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under Law 121(I)/2000. The Applicant contended that the New York Convention supersedes such restrictions, which are absent from its provisions.
2. Interpretation of the New York Convention: The Respondent argued that Law 84/1979 and Law 121(I)/2000 complement one another. It contended that jurisdiction must first be established under Law 121(I)/2000 before the conditions imposed by the New York Convention are examined.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court affirmed the primacy of the New York Convention, which mandates the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards without imposing conditions based on the parties’ domiciles. The Court highlighted:

• Article III of the New York Convention, which prohibits the imposition of more onerous conditions on foreign arbitral awards than those applicable to domestic awards.
• The exhaustive nature of the New York Convention's refusal grounds, as enumerated in Article V of the Convention.
• The hierarchy established by Article 169.3 of the Cypriot Constitution, granting international treaty law precedence over conflicting domestic statutes.

The Court rejected the Respondent’s arguments, noting that the procedural provisions of Law 121(I)/2000 must align with the broader obligations under the New York Convention.

The Court drew on precedents, including Rosseel NV v. Oriental Commercial & Shipping Co to bolster its findings.

Conclusion

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the presence of assets or residence within Cyprus is not a prerequisite for enforcing a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention.

This decision highlights the enduring relevance of the New York Convention in facilitating cross-border arbitration and the enforcement of awards, ensuring that domestic laws do not hinder the global arbitration framework.