What happened
A sole ad hoc arbitrator issued a preliminary jurisdiction ruling in a loan dispute and later left the claim without consideration for failure to observe a pre-action requirement. The respondents asked the district court to annul the jurisdiction ruling. The district court left their application without consideration; the cassation court returned their complaint relying on Article 422.1’s non-appealability language.
What the Supreme Court reviewed
The issue was access to cassation against the district court’s procedural refusal. The Court considered Article 422.1(5)–(6), general cassation provisions and paragraphs 33 and 60 of Plenum Resolution 53. The law does not bar cassation of an order leaving this application without consideration. Returning the complaint prevented review of the refusal to determine the application.
Exact disposition
The cassation orders of 23 October and 6 December 2023 were reversed. The matter returned to the same cassation court for the questions of accepting the complaint. The Supreme Court did not invalidate the agreement, annul the arbitrator’s ruling or establish jurisdiction or its absence. It restored a review route rather than deciding the jurisdiction dispute.
How the decision assists analysis
Identify whether the order determines the application on its merits or creates a procedural barrier to hearing it, then check the relevant review route. “Cannot be appealed” should not be treated without this analysis as a prohibition on every cassation review. See the jurisdiction-objections guide.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.