NEWSLETTER-2017

172 NEWSLETTER 2017 words, if the grounds to set aside would not result in the set aside of the award pursuant to the law to be applied by the enforcement judge, then this arbitral award may be enforced. An example of the decisions referred to, above, is the Hilmarton case. In this case, the French Court of Cassation ( Cour de Cassation ) decided to enforce an award set aside in Switzerland. The Court of Cassation held that the award was an international award that was not integrated into the legal order of that state and, therefore, continues to exist even though it has been set aside. Accordingly, the Court decided that the parties could avail themselves of French rules pertaining to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, namely, the relevant articles of the Code of Civil Procedure, which do not include the same grounds for refusal of enforcement as Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention. The Court of Cassation also emphasized that the enforcement of that award in France would not contradict the in- ternational public policy 2 . Similarly, in the Chromalloy case, an arbitral award was set aside by the courts of Egypt. In this case, the Arab Republic of Egypt con- tended that the arbitrators incorrectly applied the substantive law by refusing to apply Egyptian administrative law, which should govern the contract. The United States District Court (District of Columbia) decided that this would, at worst, constitute a mistake of law, which would not be subject to review by the enforcement court. The court further opined that the grounds to set aside in Egypt would not result in setting aside in the United States, and recognizing the decision of the Egyptian court would violate the United States public policy in favor of final and binding arbitration of commercial disputes and, therefore, decided on the enforcement of the relevant arbitral award 3 . Finally, the issue has been discussed within the scope of four Yu- kos arbitration awards that have been set aside in Russia. In 2009, the 2 Cour de Cassation, Societe Hilmarton Ltd. V. Societe Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation (OTV), 23 March 1994, Van den Berg (ed), Yearbook Commer- cial Arbitration 1995, p. 663. 3 United States District Court, District of Columbia, 31.07.1986, Civil no. 94-2339, Chromalloy Aeroservices Inc. v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, (1997), Van den Berg (ed), Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 1997, p. 1001.