Arbitral Digest

Matter

Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ukraine (European Court of Human Rights Application no. 23819/11)

Aliases: Virtus Ambalaj Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ukraine

Applicable rules
Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
  1. 20 February 2009Arbitration

    20 February 2009Arbitration

    Arbitral Award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry dated 20 February 2009

    International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

    Decision summary
    The International Commercial Arbitration Court ordered A. to pay the applicant company in full for delivered goods and to reimburse the arbitration fee.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
    A.
    International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

    5 months and 7 days later · 157 days

  2. 27 July 2009Ukraine

    27 July 2009Ukraine

    Decision of the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv dated 27 July 2009

    Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv

    Decision summary
    The court allowed A.'s application and set aside the arbitral award, finding that the arbitration clause referred to a non-existent institution, lacked a court procedure for resolving interpretation disputes, and placed matters outside the clause's scope before the arbitral tribunal.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    A.
    Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
    Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv

    4 months and 12 days later · 135 days

  3. 9 December 2009Ukraine

    9 December 2009Ukraine

    Judgment of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated 9 December 2009

    Kyiv Court of Appeal

    Decision summary
    The Court of Appeal upheld the decision setting aside the arbitral award, holding that the Ukrainian version of the arbitration clause referred to a non-existent institution and did not expressly authorise the International Commercial Arbitration Court to interpret the clause.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
    A.
    Kyiv Court of Appeal

    10 months and 4 days later · 308 days

  4. 13 October 2010Ukraine

    13 October 2010Ukraine

    Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 13 October 2010

    Supreme Court of Ukraine

    Decision summary
    The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions setting aside the arbitral award, stating that the arbitration clause did not expressly authorise the International Commercial Arbitration Court to interpret it and that A.'s jurisdictional objections showed that the parties had not agreed to refer their disputes to that court.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
    A.
    Supreme Court of Ukraine

    10 years, 9 months and 2 days later · 3928 days

  5. 15 July 2021France

    15 July 2021France

    Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ukraine, application no. 23819/11 dated 15 July 2021

    European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section)

    Case no.
    Application no. 23819/11
    Citation
    Application no. 23819/11, 15 July 2021
    Decision summary
    The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the Ukrainian courts failed to give adequate reasons addressing the applicant company's specific and decisive arguments concerning the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. It declared the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 inadmissible as premature, held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, and rejected the claims for costs and expenses.

    Supporting details

    12 authorities · 8 participants
    Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
    Representative
    T. Gürmen (For: Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi)
    Ukrainian Government
    Representative
    I. Lishchyna (For: Ukrainian Government)
    European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section)
    Other
    Tribunal secretary
    Martina Keller

    Authorities cited

    12
    • Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
      statute
    • Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
      statute
    • Law of Ukraine on international commercial arbitration of 24 February 1994
      statute
    • Piryanik v. Ukraine (no. 75788/01, 19 April 2005)
      case-law
    • Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC] (no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015)
      case-law
    • Zubac v. Croatia [GC] (no. 40160/12, 5 April 2018)
      case-law
    • García Ruiz v. Spain [GC] (no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I)
      case-law
    • Petrović and Others v. Montenegro (no. 18116/15, 17 July 2018)
      case-law
    • Pronina v. Ukraine (no. 63566/00, 18 July 2006)
      case-law
    • Mala v. Ukraine (no. 4436/07, 3 July 2014)
      case-law
    • Centre for the Development of Analytical Psychology v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (nos. 29545/10 and 32961/10, 15 June 2017)
      case-law
    • Mont Blanc Trading Ltd and Antares Titanium Trading Ltd v. Ukraine (no. 11161/08, 14 January 2021)
      case-law

Matter record

Report a correction

Arcelormittal Ambalaj Celigi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ukraine (European Court of Human Rights Application no. 23819/11) · Matter