Arbitration Act

With the person that received an order for interim measures (irrespective of whether or not the place of arbitration is in Japan; hereinafter the same applies in this Chapter) as the respondent, in accordance with the categories stated in each of the following items, a person that filed a petition for the order for interim measures may file a petition with the court to issue the orders specified in those items (hereinafter referred to as "enforcement approval orders"):

If the court with which the petition referred to in paragraph (1) is filed has come to acknowledge that a petition for revoking, amending or suspending the order for interim measures is filed with the arbitral tribunal or judicial body (limited to the case in which the judicial body of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs has authority, according to the laws and regulations of that country (or if the laws and regulations applied to the order for interim measures are laws and regulations of a country other than the country to which the place of arbitration belongs, according to the laws and regulations of that other country)) and finds it necessary to do so, the court may suspend the procedure for the petition referred to in that paragraph. In this case, the court may order the respondent to provide security, upon the petition of the person that filed the petition referred to in that paragraph.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 5, paragraphs (1) and (2), the case subject to the petition referred to in paragraph (1) is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the following courts:

the courts stated in the items of Article 5, paragraph (1);

the district court which has jurisdiction over the location of the subject matter of the claim or the seizable property of the respondent; and

the Tokyo District Court and the Osaka District Court (limited to the case in which the place of arbitration, the location of the general venue of the respondent, or the location of the subject matter of the claim or the seizable property of the respondent is in Japan).

An immediate appeal may be filed against the decision under Article 5, paragraph (4) or (5) with regard to a case related to the petition referred to in paragraph (1).

The court is required to make an enforcement approval order, except the case in which it dismisses the petition referred to in paragraph (1) without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of the following paragraph or paragraph (8).

If a petition referred to in paragraph (1) has been filed, the court may dismiss the petition without prejudice only when it finds that any of the grounds stated in the following items exist (for the grounds stated in items (i) through (viii), limited to the case in which the respondent has proved the existence of the grounds):

the arbitration agreement is not valid due to the limitation on the legal capacity of a party;

the arbitration agreement is not valid on grounds other than the limitation on the legal capacity of a party pursuant to the laws and regulations designated by the agreement of the parties as those which should be applied to the arbitration agreement (or if the designation has not been made, pursuant to the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs);

the party did not receive the notice that is required pursuant to the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs (or if the parties have reached an agreement on the matters concerning the provisions unrelated to public order in those laws and regulations, pursuant to the agreement) in the procedure of appointing arbitrators or in the arbitration procedure (limited to the part which concerns an order for interim measures; the same applies in the following item and item (vi));

the party was unable to conduct a defense in the arbitration procedure;

the order for interim measures was issued concerning matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or other agreement concerning an order for interim measures or concerning matters beyond the scope of a petition for an order for interim measures;

the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure is in violation of the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs (or if the parties have reached an agreement concerning the matters concerning the provisions unrelated to public order in those laws and regulations, in violation of the agreement);

when the arbitral tribunal has ordered the party requesting an order for interim measures to provide appropriate security, and the party is in violation of the order and is not providing appropriate security;

the order for interim measures has been revoked, amended or suspended by the arbitral tribunal or the judicial body stated in paragraph (3);

the petition filed in the arbitration procedure is concerned with a dispute which may not be subject to an arbitration agreement pursuant to the provisions of Japanese laws and regulations; or

the content of the order for interim measures is contrary to public policy in Japan.

If the grounds stated in item (v) of the preceding paragraph exist, and the part concerning the matters provided for in that item can be separated from the other parts of the order for interim measures, the relevant part and the other parts of the order for interim measures are respectively deemed to be independent orders for interim measures, and the provisions of that paragraph apply.

An enforcement approval order is not effective until it becomes final and binding.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the court may issue an order for payment of money under the paragraph (hereinafter referred to as an "order for payment of penalty" in this Article) at the same time it issues an enforcement approval order. In this case, the order for payment of penalty is not finalized until the enforcement approval order is finalized.

An order for payment of penalty is not effective until it becomes final and binding.

If there has been payment of money that was ordered pursuant to the order for payment of penalty, and the amount of damages that resulted from violation of the order for interim measures exceeds the amount of payment, the petitioner is not precluded from claiming compensation for damages for the amount in excess.