Data

Date:
19-05-2016
Country:
Paraguay
Number:
39/2016
Court:
Tribunal de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial de Asunción, Tercera Sala
Parties:
Dirección Nacional De Aduanas v. Imperio S.A. De Seguros y Reaseguros

Keywords

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARAGUAYAN NATIONAL CUSTOMS AGENCY AND A PARAGUAYAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING OR SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (PARAGUAYAN LAW)

INTERPRETATION OF INSURANCE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ART. 4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO AFFIRM THAT PROVISIONS OF A SPECIFIC CHARACTER PREVAIL OVER PROVISIONS LAYING DOWN MORE GENERAL RULES

Abstract

CLAIMANT, the Paraguayan National Customs Agency, filed a lawsuit against RESPONDENT, an insurance company, aimed at enforcing an administrative resolution against the latter.

The First Instance Court ruled in favor of CLAIMANT.

RESPONDENT then filed an appeal against the First Instance ruling, sustaining that the claim filed by the National Customs Agency was untimely and therefore the request of enforcement of the administrative resolution had to be dismissed. CLAIMANT replied that the limitation period was suspended from the time when the policyholder was notified of the administrative proceeding.

After having established that the limitation period applicable to the present case was the one usually applied to insurance relationships (e.g. one year), the Appellate Court moved on the question of the starting point of the limitation period. On this matter, the Court noted that the contract entered into between RESPONDENT and the policyholder presented a contradiction.

While addressing the contract interpretation issue, the Court of Appeal referred to Article 4.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles, quoting in extenso the official Comment, which affirms that "provisions of a specific character prevail over provisions laying down more general rules". In application of this principle, the Court held that the intention of the parties was to give full effect to the contract starting from midnight of the date of its signature. As a consequence, the claim of the National Customs Agency could not be considered as time- barred.

Fulltext

[...]

Por su parte, los comentarios oficiales de los Principios UNIDROIT en su art. 4.4, al respecto nos dicen: "En principio, no existe jerarquía alguna entre los términos del contrato, en el sentido que la importancia de cada uno de ellos es la misma para interpretar el resto del contrato, sin atender al orden en que ellos aparezcan. Sin embargo, hay algunas excepciones a esta regla. Primero, las declaraciones de intención incluidas en el preámbulo del contrato pueden o no tener consecuencias para la interpretación de sus disposiciones operativas. Segundo, va de suyo que en caso de conflicto, las cláusulas de carácter específico prevalecen sobre las disposiciones de carácter general. Finalmente, las partes pueden expresar ellas mismas cierta jerarquía entre las diferentes disposiciones o términos del contrato. Esto es frecuente en el caso de contratos complejos celebrados en diferentes documentos relacionados con los aspectos jurídicos, económicos y técnicos de la operación."

[...]}}

Source

}}