Arbitral Digest

Matter

Corema v Gefu Kuchenboss (French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 8 April 2009)

  1. 9 April 2008France

    9 April 2008France

    Judgment of the Toulouse Court of Appeal dated 9 April 2008

    Toulouse Court of Appeal

    Decision summary
    The Toulouse Court of Appeal held the Toulouse Commercial Court competent after treating the contractual arbitration procedure as lapsed when the parties did not agree on an arbitrator within three months of Corema's notification of the dispute.

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    Corema
    Gefu Kuchenboss GmbH und Co KG
    Gefu Geschäfts-und Verwaltungs GmbH
    Toulouse Court of Appeal

    11 months and 30 days later · 364 days

  2. 8 April 2009France

    8 April 2009France

    Judgment of the French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, in the Corema–Gefu dispute dated 8 April 2009

    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Decision summary
    The Court of Cassation quashed and annulled in all respects the Toulouse Court of Appeal judgment that had held the Toulouse Commercial Court competent. Applying the principle that an arbitrator has priority to rule on its own jurisdiction unless the arbitration clause is manifestly void or inapplicable, it remanded the case to the Toulouse Court of Appeal differently composed, ordered Corema to pay the costs, and rejected both Article 700 requests.

    Supporting details

    1 authority · 5 participants
    Corema
    Representative
    Me Laborde (For: Corema)
    Gefu Kuchenboss GmbH und Co KG
    Representative
    SCP Tiffreau (For: Gefu Kuchenboss GmbH und Co KG · Gefu Geschäfts-und Verwaltungs GmbH)
    Gefu Geschäfts-und Verwaltungs GmbH
    Representative
    SCP Tiffreau (For: Gefu Kuchenboss GmbH und Co KG · Gefu Geschäfts-und Verwaltungs GmbH)
    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Authorities cited

    1
    • French Code of Civil Procedure
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

Corema v Gefu Kuchenboss (French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 8 April 2009) · Matter