Par jugement du 19 juin 2019, le Tribunal de premi\u00e8re instance francophone de Bruxelles a pos\u00e9 la question pr\u00e9judicielle suivante:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00ab L\u2019article 1717, \u00a74 du Code judiciaire viole-t-il les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant combin\u00e9s \u00e0 l\u2019article 6 de la Convention europ\u00e9enne de sauvegarde des droits de l\u2019homme et des libert\u00e9s fondamentales, en ce qu\u2019il instaure un d\u00e9lai de d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance qui ne permet plus \u00e0 une partie \u00e0 une proc\u00e9dure arbitrale de remettre en cause la sentence, lorsqu\u2019elle d\u00e9couvre plus de trois mois apr\u00e8s la communication de celle-ci qu\u2019elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 obtenue par fraude, alors qu\u2019en vertu des articles 1132 et suivants du Code judiciaire, une partie \u00e0 une proc\u00e9dure judiciaire dispose d\u2019un d\u00e9lai de six mois \u00e0 dater de la d\u00e9couverte de la fraude pour introduire une requ\u00eate civile ?<\/em> \u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Selon la Cour constitutionnelle, le d\u00e9lai – relativement bref – de trois (3) mois pour agir en annulation d\u2019une sentence arbitrale est \u00ab raisonnablement justifi\u00e9 par la volont\u00e9 du l\u00e9gislateur de fournir rapidement aux parties qui d\u00e9cident librement de recourir \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage une d\u00e9cision d\u00e9finitive sur le diff\u00e9rend qui les oppose<\/em> (\u2026). Ce d\u00e9lai n\u2019est pas excessivement bref, ni de nature \u00e0 emp\u00eacher les int\u00e9ress\u00e9s d\u2019introduire une demande en annulation.\u00bb<\/em> (cf. Consid\u00e9rant B.10.1.); de m\u00eame, la Cour constitutionnelle souligne que la \u00ab fixation du point de d\u00e9part de ce d\u00e9lai \u00e0 la date de la communication de la sentence arbitrale est en principe pertinente au regard de cet objectif \u00bb <\/em>(cf. Consid\u00e9rant B.10.2.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Toutefois, la Cour juge que la disposition en cause entra\u00eene une limitation disproportionn\u00e9e des droits de la partie victime de la fraude, en ce \u00ab qu\u2019elle ne permet pas \u00e0 la partie qui d\u00e9couvre, plus de trois mois apr\u00e8s la communication de la sentence, que celle-ci a \u00e9t\u00e9 obtenue par fraude de demander l\u2019annulation de la sentence litigieuse, et ce en toute hypoth\u00e8se.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n La Cour constitutionnelle invite <\/em>donc le l\u00e9gislateur \u00e0 mettre un terme \u00e0 l\u2019inconstitutionnalit\u00e9 constat\u00e9e.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dans l\u2019attente de l\u2019intervention du l\u00e9gislateur, il appartient au juge, en fonction des circonstances, d\u2019appr\u00e9cier si la demande en annulation d\u2019une sentence arbitrale a \u00e9t\u00e9 introduite dans un d\u00e9lai raisonnable \u00e0 compter du constat de ce que la sentence a \u00e9t\u00e9 obtenue par fraude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Source: Cour constitutionnelle (Belgique), arr\u00eat n\u00b014\/2021 du 28 janvier 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Short summary (EN)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Belgian Constitutional Court ruled that the difference in treatment between, on the one hand, a party to judicial proceedings, which can challenge a court decision if it finds out that the judge\u2019s decision is tainted with circumstances such as fraud, and, on the other hand, a party to an arbitration, which discovers that the award was obtained fraudulently, is disproportionate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, according to article 1136 of the Judicial Code, the former may request for the judge\u2019s decision to be revoked within six months of the discovery of the new circumstance, while the latter may only apply to set aside a Belgian arbitral award before the Belgian Courts within three months of receiving the award (according to article 1717, \u00a7 4 of the Judicial Code). As a result, the lawmaker will be required to amend this unconstitutional provision. Until so, a challenge to an award on the basis of fraud will have to be introduced within a “reasonable timeframe<\/em> given the circumstances, from the point of the discovery of the fraud<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source: Belgian Constitutional Court, decision n\u00b014\/2021 dated 28th January 2021.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Par jugement du 19 juin 2019, le Tribunal de premi\u00e8re instance francophone de Bruxelles a pos\u00e9 la question pr\u00e9judicielle suivante: \u00ab L\u2019article 1717, \u00a74 du Code judiciaire viole-t-il les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant combin\u00e9s \u00e0 l\u2019article 6 de la Convention europ\u00e9enne de sauvegarde des droits de l\u2019homme et des […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":29131,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[119,120],"tags":[121,126,122,125,124,123,127],"class_list":["post-29308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-litigation","tag-arbitrage","tag-arbitral-award","tag-arbitration","tag-cour-constitutionnelle","tag-litigation","tag-litige","tag-sentence-arbitrale"],"yoast_head":"\n
According to the Constitutional Court, having such a time bar of three months is a proportionate difference in treatment given the objectives of swift and effective dispute solving reflected in the Belgian law of arbitration; the Constitutional Court stated, however, that systematically limiting a party\u2019s possibility of setting aside the award to three months from the point of the communication of the award, even when the fraud basing the challenge is discovered later, is disproportionate and, therefore, unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n