Facts
This case concerned an arbitral award dated January 12, 2009, in which the ICC arbitral tribunal dismissed the declaratory claim of the Respondent (X. AG) regarding the alleged contract extension with the Applicant (Federation Y.), but declared itself incompetent for further declaratory and injunctive claims. Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal partially upheld the Respondent's claim for damages, but dismissed the Applicant's counterclaim. Both parties filed appeals against the arbitral award with the Federal Court.
In its judgment of June 9, 2009, the Federal Court dismissed the Respondent's appeal, insofar as it could be considered, and upheld the Applicant's appeal. With regard to the Applicant's counterclaim for damages, which had been dismissed by the arbitral tribunal, the Federal Court held that the Applicant had not raised a sufficient objection to the jurisdiction.
In a submission dated September 17, 2009, the Applicant requested the Federal Court to clarify the wording of the operative part of the judgment of June 9, 2009, as it saw a contradiction between the operative part and the reasons for the decision.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant's request for clarification. It stated that the Applicant was wrongly asserting a contradiction between the operative part and the reasons for the decision. The Federal Court had merely stated with regard to the Applicant's counterclaim that it had not raised a sufficient objection to the jurisdiction, and therefore had not had to decide on it. The decision of the Federal Court to refrain from annulling…