Facts
Enforcement of a sole ad hoc arbitrator’s royalty award was refused, with objections concerning the arbitrator and the Ministry of Justice list.
Holding and outcome
The Supreme Court quashed the refusal and cassation ruling and remanded. Disguised institutional administration had not been established. A procedural objection under Article 426(3)(5) cannot automatically become non-arbitrability under paragraph 4.
Limits of the holding
The Supreme Court did not itself issue a writ. Agreement, tribunal, notice and actual organisation requirements still apply. A list of institutions is not a register of every individual arbitrator.
Why classification matters
Pages 4–5 distinguish tribunal composition or procedure from non-arbitrability. Article 426(3)(5) requires an objection and proof from the party, while non-arbitrability is reviewed by the court independently. Disguised institutional administration had not been established.
Application defects are not substantive refusal grounds
Page 6 explains that missing mandatory attachments call for an opportunity to cure the application. Incorrect territorial venue requires return or transfer under the relevant rules. These defects cannot be converted into independent substantive refusal grounds that obstruct a renewed application.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.