Data
- Date:
- 00-00-2002
- Country:
- Arbitral Award
- Number:
- 11018
- Court:
- ICC International Court of Arbitration 11018
- Parties:
Keywords
DISPUTE TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO LEX MERCATORIA AS EXPRESSED BY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - REFERENCE TO DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW) TO SUPPLEMENT UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
ILLEGALITY - EFFECTS - NOT [YET] COVERED BY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - REFERENCE TO FRENCH LAW
Abstract
In a dispute the Arbitral Tribunal, after having decided to base its decision on the lex mercatoria as expressed in the UNIDROIT Principles, notes that the UNIDROIT Principles do not deal with the effects of illegality [illegality will be dealt with in the 2010 edition of the UNIDROIT Principles – note by the Editors] and consequently decides to apply French law as an additional source of law.
Fulltext
“[...]
The lex mercatoria is not yet very elaborated on nullity as a consequence of illegality. For instance, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts or the Principles of European Contract Law do not deal with invalidity arising from illegality. However, many principles of the lex mercatoria related to nullity in general are relevant in the present case. Moreover, to the extent necessary, French law, that is very elaborate on the issue of nullity, will be taken into consideration as an additional source of law.
[...]”
Voir en ce sens, sentence finale 11265 en 2003 :
“S’agissant de l’interprétation des dispositions du Contrat, il appartient au tribunal de déterminer l’intention commune des Parties. Ce faisant, le Tribunal prendra en considération toutes les circonstances qu’il estime pertinentes, notamment le langage des dispositions concernées, les négociations préliminaires entre les Parties, le comportement des Parties postérieur à la conclusion du Contrat et la nature et le but du Contrat. V. Principes UNIDROIT Articles 4.1 et 4.3.”}}
Source
E. Jolivet, L'harmonisation du droit OHADA des contrats: l'influence des Principes d'UNIDROIT en matière de pratique contractuelle et d'arbitrage, in Unifrom Law Review, p. 127 et seq. (p.143 fn 39)}}