The Supreme Court creates doctrine on this issue effectiveness of foreign decisions Due to the dispute that has been going on for a while between the oil distributor Petromiralles and Barclays Bank in our country. Debt of 1.3 million euros derived from a framework agreement that both parties negotiate to face currency hedging transactions. The supreme court annulled a decision made by the Barcelona Court in 2019 and ordered a new decision contrary to the interests of the financial institution. not approve the contract aforementioned.
Punishment imposed by the party Supreme Court Civil Chamber, whose speaker was the judge Juan María Díaz Fraile, It is dated 8 September and also refers to the implementation of European regulations on the recognition of penalties. final judgment effect A decision issued by a British court in October 2008 concluded that the Spanish company had not perfected the framework agreement (Terms of Business) it had negotiated with Barclays and was therefore not binding. Since one article of this contract mentioned surrendering to British justice, it was determined that this was not binding and the case was sent to Spain.
Regarding the ineffectiveness of the contract between the bank and the oil company, the Supreme Court concluded at the subsequent hearing in Spain that to state otherwise would amount to the acceptance of “an agreement”. violation of binding nature It arose from the recognition of the English decision” because the preliminary conclusion of the English court rejecting its jurisdiction in this case would have been called into question.
english document
On the merits of the matter, it points out that, in accordance with the applicable Spanish law, the following conclusion must be reached: Petromiralles did not allow based on a valid contract Linking as a framework contract to a document sent and recalled by the bank ‘business terms, therefore no claims can be made. Among other things, it is appreciated that the document was sent in English. This is the same conclusion reached by the court in Igualada, where the case was first filed.
This is the total amount the British bank received from the Spanish oil company. 1,340,356.71 Eurosas liability for damages resulting from breach of contracts arising from foreign exchange transactions pay for fuel in US dollars Although it was important for its commercialization. Sold to customers in euros. Currency exchange made an impact significant risk This situation was attempted to be rectified through a specific product offered by the financial institution.
case in england
Barclays first submitted its request to the court. Queen’s Bench of the High Court of Justice, and at this point Petromiralles decided to reject it because it thought that the Spanish courts had the authority to hear this claim. On October 15, 2008 British judge upholds rejection It is understood that the provision of submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts in the above-mentioned ‘Business Terms’ is not binding because it is not accepted by the defendant.
When the case reached Spain, the court in Igualada commented that the decision to contract the banking service was not final and rejected the claim; but the State Court later found the opposite and ordered Petromiralles to pay 1.3 million plus $1.3 million. interest and costs. The Court considered that the English decision should not have any impact on this process and that, inter alia, the framework agreement to be subject to English law was implicitly accepted.
Source: Informacion
James Sean is a writer for “Social Bites”. He covers a wide range of topics, bringing the latest news and developments to his readers. With a keen sense of what’s important and a passion for writing, James delivers unique and insightful articles that keep his readers informed and engaged.