SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED

KEYWORD Count of Cases
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS 11
AGENCY CONTRACT 6
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Brussels 8548

00-00-1996
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A NORTH AMERICAN AGENT AND A GERMAN-BELGIAN GROUP OF COMPANIES - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - PARTIES AGREE ON THE APPLICATION OF DUTCH LAW

GOOD FAITH IN CONTRACT PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW
Arbitral Award
Camera Arbitrale Nazionale ed Internazionale di Milano

01-12-1996
COMMERCIAL AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ITALIAN COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - AGREEMENT BY PARTIES TO SETTLE THEIR DISPUTE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - TEMPERED BY RECOURSE TO EQUITY

CONTRACT OF COMMERCIAL AGENCY - BINDING UPON PARTIES (ART. 1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

PARTY'S WRITTEN DECLARATION - INTERPRETED AS NOTICE OF TERMINATION (ARTS. 4.1 AND 4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

EXCLUSION OF THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT FOR AN EVENT ON THE OCCURRENCE OF WHICH PARTIES HAD AGREED TO RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT (ART. 7.3.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

TERMINATION - CONTRACT TERM INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER TERMINATION (ART. 7.3.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

DAMAGES - FULL COMPENSATION OF THE HARM SUSTAINED (ARTS. 7.4.1 AND 7.4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - DOES NOT INCLUDE EMOTIONAL SUFFERING AND DISTRESS WHEN AGGRIEVED PARTY IS A CORPORATE ENTITY

DAMAGES - COMPENSATION LIMITED TO FORESEEABLE HARM ARISING OUT OF NON-PERFORMANCE (ARTS. 7.4.3-7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

INTEREST - RUNNING FROM THE TIME WHEN PAYMENT IS DUE (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

INTEREST - INTEREST RATE FIXED BY THE PARTIES (ART. 7.4.13 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
China
Beijing Haidian District People’s Court

20-06-2005
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SALES AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW

"COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - AVOIDANCE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR FRAUD - REFERENCE IN THE COMMENTS TO ARTICLE 3.11 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Paraguay
Tribunal de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial de Asunción, Sexta Sala

06-10-2016
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A PARAGUAYAN INDIVIDUAL AND A PARAGUAYAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING OR SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (PARAGUAYAN LAW)

CONCLUSION OF AN ORAL CONTRACT - BURDEN OF PROOF - NO PARTICULAR FORM REQUIRED - REFERENCE TO ART. 1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF FORM EXPRESSED BY DOMESTIC LAW

NOTION OF NON-PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE TO ART: 7.1.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR DEFINITION IN THE APPLICABLE LAW

ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BETWEEN PARTIES - BINDING CHARACTER - REFERENCE TO ART. 1.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 9 CISG IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE APPLICABLE LAW

ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BETWEEN PARTIES - SOURCE OF IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS ACCORDING TO ART. 5.1.2 (B) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

SALES COMMISSION AGREEMENT - REVOCATION OF AUTHORITY BY THE PRINCIPAL - NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL IT IS MADE KNOWN TO THIRD PARTIES - REFERENCE TO ART. 2.2.10 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Russian Supreme Commercial Court

08-04-2014
AGENCY CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

AGENCY CONTRACT - KIND OF OBLIGATION OF AGENT - WHETHER DUTY TO ACHIEVE A SPECIFIC RESULT OR DUTY OF BEST EFFORTS - CRITERIA TO BE ADOPTED TO DETERMINE KIND OF OBLIGATION OF AGENT THOSE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5.1.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Spain
Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil)

04-07-2006
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GERMAN SHIPPING COMPANY AND A SPANISH COMPANY

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (GERMAN LAW)

GOOD FAITH - PARAGRAPH 242 OF THE GERMAN CIVIL CODE DIFFERENT FROM ART. 1258 OF THE SPANISH CIVIL CODE - CORRESPONDING IN SUBSTANCE TO ART. 1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 1:201 OF THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT 6
ASSIGNMENT CONTRACT 1
BANK GUARANTEE 2
BARTER AGREEMENT 2
BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT) CONTRACT 1
BUSINESS PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1
CONCESSION CONTRACT 3
CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT 2
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 1
CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CONTRACT 1
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 23
CONSULTING CONTRACT 2
CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION 1
CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE 1
CONTRACT FOR TRANSFER OF FOOTBALL PLAYER 1
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS 3
CONTRACT ON TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION 1
COOPERATION AGREEMENT 2
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 3
DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 18
EASEMENT CONTRACT 3
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 2
EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT 1
INSURANCE CONTRACT 4
INTER-FIRM AGREEMENT 1
JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT 4
LAND USE CONTRACT 1
LEASE CONTRACT 15
LICENSING AGREEMENT 8
LICENSING AND JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT 1
LICENSING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT 1
LOAN AGREEMENT 11
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS 142
MARKETING AGREEMENT 1
MEDIATION AGREEMENT 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 5
PRE-BID AGREEMENT 1
PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT 1
SALES CONTRACT 132
SATELLITE CONTRACT 3
SERVICE CONTRACT 36
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 9
SHARE OPTION AGREEMENT 1
SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 11
SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT 2
STATE CONTRACTS 33
SUPPLY CONTRACT 41
TRANSPORT CONTRACT 4

SELECTED CASES BY NATIONALITY OF THE PARTIES

KEYWORD Count of Cases
AFRICAN 4
ALGERIAN 1
ARGENTINIAN 14
AUSTRALIAN 16
AUSTRIAN 9
BAHAMIAN 1
BELGIAN 5
BELORUSSIAN 7
BERMUDIAN 1
BRAZILIAN 9
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAND 1
BULGARIAN 1
CANADIAN 10
CENTRAL EUROPEAN 1
CHILEAN 1
CHINESE 33
COLOMBIAN 5
CONGOLESE 1
COSTA RICAN 5
CYPRIOT 6
CZECH 1
DANISH 3
DUTCH 21
DUTCH ANTILLEAN 1
EAST ASIAN 1
EASTERN EUROPEAN 6
ECUADORIAN 1
EGYPTIAN 1
ENGLISH 33
ESTONIAN 2
EUROPEAN 46
FINNISH 1
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) 1
FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF WALES 1
FRENCH 35
GEORGIAN 1
GERMAN 21
GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 1
GIBRALTAR 1
GREEK 4
HONG KONG 3
HUNGARIAN 3
INDIAN 8
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD) 1
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 3
IRANIAN 10
IRAQI 1
ISRAELI 1
ITALIAN 37
IVORIAN 1
JAPANESE 5
KAZAKH 5
KOREAN 4
KUWAITI 2
KYRGYZ 1
LATIN AMERICAN 1
LEBANESE 3
LIBYAN 1
LIECHTENSTEIN 5
LITHUANIAN 16
LUXEMBOURG 1
MARSHALLESE 1
MEMBER FIRMS OF THE ANDERSEN WORLDWIDE ORGANIZATION 1
MEXICAN 4
MIDDLE EASTERN 4
MOLDAVIAN 1
MOROCCAN 1
NEW ZEALAND 5
NIGERIAN 1
NORTH AFRICAN 1
NORTH AMERICAN 1
NORWEGIAN 2
PAKISTANI 1
PANAMANIAN 1
PARAGUAYAN 18
PHILIPPINE 2
PLURALITY OF PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES 7
POLISH 10
PORTUGUESE 3
PUERTO RICAN 1
ROMANIAN 5
RUSSIAN 95
RWANDESE 1
SALVADORAN 1
SCANDINAVIAN 1
SCOTTISH 1
SERBIAN 2
SINGAPOREAN 1
SLOVAKIAN 1
SLOVENIAN 1
SOUTH AFRICAN 1
SOUTH KOREAN 1
SOUTHWEST ASIAN 1
SPANISH 38
STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 1
SWEDISH 8
SWISS 20
TURKISH 8
TURKMEN 1
UKRAINIAN 26
UNION OF EUROPEAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS (UEFA) 1
UNITED KINGDOM 3
UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION 2
UNITED STATES 38
URUGUAYAN 3
UZBEK 1
VENEZUELAN 3
VIETNAMESE 1
WEST INDIAN 2
WESTERN EUROPEAN 2

SELECTED CASES BY DOMESTIC LAW INVOLVED

KEYWORD Count of Cases
ALGERIAN LAW 1
ARGENTINIAN LAW 8
AUSTRALIAN LAW 14
AUSTRIAN LAW 3
BELORUSSIAN LAW 6
BRAZILIAN LAW 4
CHINESE LAW 14
COLOMBIAN LAW 5
COSTA RICAN LAW 4
CZECH LAW 1
DANISH LAW 1
DUTCH CARRIBEAN LAW 1
DUTCH LAW 7
ECUADORIAN LAW 1
EGYPTIAN LAW 1
ENGLISH LAW 16
FRENCH LAW 10
GERMAN LAW 6
GREEK LAW 1
INDIAN LAW 2
IRANIAN LAW 1
ITALIAN LAW 21
IVORIAN LAW 1
JAPANESE LAW 1
KAZAKH LAW 1
KUWAITI LAW 1
LAW OF A EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY 1
LAW OF A NORDIC COUNTRY 1
LAW OF THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 1
LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 1
LEBANESE LAW 1
LIBYAN LAW 1
LITHUANIAN LAW 16
MEXICAN LAW 2
NEW ZEALAND LAW 5
NORWEGIAN LAW 2
PARAGUAYAN LAW 18
POLISH LAW 3
PORTUGUESE LAW 3
QUEBEC LAW 3
ROMANIAN LAW 2
RUSSIAN LAW 74
SCOTTISH LAW 1
SERBIAN LAW 1
SPANISH LAW 27
SWEDISH LAW 5
SWISS LAW 11
TURKISH LAW 2
TURKMEN LAW 1
UKRAINIAN LAW 20
URUGUAYAN LAW 3

BY INTERNATIONAL LAW INVOLVED

Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 7365/FMS

05-05-1997
STATE CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (IRANIAN LAW) - AGREEMENT BY PARTIES AS TO COMPLEMENTARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TRADE USAGES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES

HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO DEMAND TERMINATION OR ADAPTATION OF CONTRACT (ART. 6.2.3(4) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS - GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (ARTS. 5.1 AND 5.2 [ARTS. 5.1.1 AND 5.1.2 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

TERMINATION - RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (ART. 7.3.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

INTEREST - RIGHT TO INTEREST INDEPENDENT OF A FORMAL REQUEST BY AGGRIEVED PARTY (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS PROVISION CORRESPONDS TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 12111

06-01-2003
SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUMANIAN COMPANY AND AN ENGLISH COMPANY - REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THE LEX MERCATORIA - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PREAMBLE OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW - ACADEMIC EXERCISE PRELIMINARY TO A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE - AS SUCH NOT YET APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS
Arbitral Award
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce

29-03-2005
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GIBRALTAR COMPANY AND A KYRGYZ STATE OWNED COMPANY -REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

BUYER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE DUE TO INSOLVENCY CAUSED BY INTERFERENCE BY ITS COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT - GOVERNMENT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES VIS-A-VIS SELLER

INTEREST - TO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL RULES - APPLICATION OF ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL "TO BE AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE INTEREST"
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration, Brussels

19-08-2005
STATE CONTRACTS - SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A DUTCH COMPANY AND THE POLISH GOVERNMENT - TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE BILATERAL TREATY FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AND "THE UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission

17-08-2009
ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION - DAMAGES CLAIMS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW

DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION FOR UNCERTAIN LOSSES - ASSESSMENT AT DISCRETION OF ADJUDICATING BODY - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration, The Hague

30-03-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO UNITED STATES COMPANIES AND THE ECUADORIAN GOVERNMENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW AS WELL AS ECUADORIAN LAW)

LOSS OF A CHANCE – CRITERION FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH OF THE BIT DUE TO DENIAL OF JUSTICE – REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(2) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ONLY ADMISSIBLE WHERE AMOUNT OF LOSS NOT DETERMINABLE – REFERENCE TO COMMENT 2 TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

FORCE MAJEURE – HARDSHIP – DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN A JUST AND EQUITABLE MANNER OF THE LOSSES AND GAINS RESULTING FROM UNFORESEEABLE EVENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (COMMENT ARTICLES 7.1.7 AND TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 – 6.2.3(2)) AND TO PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (ARTICLE 6:111(3)(B)) AS A MEANS TO INTERPRET ECUADORIAN LAW (ARTICLE 1563 ECUADORIAN CIVIL CODE)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

19-01-2007
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

CONCESSION CONTRACT CONCLUDED WITH TERMS LEFT OPEN - ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT NEVERTHELESS CONTRACT HAD BEEN VALIDLY CONCLUDED INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.14 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS

ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT ENTAIL OBLIGATION TO REACH AGREEMENT INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.15 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

29-07-2008
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CONGOLESE COMPANY CONTROLLED BY A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE CONGOLESE GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DISPUTE OVER THE LATTER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PRICE OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE FORMER

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT NO CONTRACT HAD EVER BEEN CONCLUDED OR HAD NOT BEEN CONCLUDED IN WRITING - OBJECTION REJECTED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 2.1.1 AND 1.2 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN COMPANY WAS NOT YET CONTROLLED BY A US NATIONAL - OBJECTION ACCEPTED - MERE NON-PERFORMANCE AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 7.1.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AMOUNTS TO DISPUTE

DISSENTING OPINION BY ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - DECISION IF AND WHEN TO TRANSFORM OBLIGOR'S FAILURE TO PERFORM INTO DISPUTE UP TO OBLIGEE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 7.1.4 AND 7.1.5(1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

01-09-2009
APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF AN ICSID AWARD RENDERED BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 (3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - STANDARD OF COMPENSATION CONFIRMED BY BOTH ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AND AD HOC COMMITTEE
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

03-03-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION AGREEMENT -BETWEEN GREEK AND ISRAELI INVESTORS AND THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF OIL PIPELINES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES AS TO SCOPE OF THE CONCESSION - WHETHER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUING THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF ADMISSIBILITY - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, THOUGH WITHOUT EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, BASICALLY CONCURRED
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

16-06-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND ARGENTINIAN COMPANIES AND THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT – BIT AND GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

DAMAGES – COMPENSATION DUE ONLY FOR HARM, INCLUDING FUTURE HARM, ESTABLISHED WITH REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY – REFERENCE TO ART. 36 ILC DRAFT ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS OF 2001 AND TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

30-07-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND SPANISH INVESTORS AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - DUE TO ARGENTINA'S FINANCIAL CRISIS ARGENTINIAN AUTHORITIES ADOPTED A SERIES OF MEASURES NEGATIVELY AFFECTING PROFITABILITY OF FOREIGN INVESTORS' INVESTMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY ARGENTINA OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

RESPONDENT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS FINANCIAL CRISIS

REQUEST FOR RE-NEGOTIATION OF TERMS OF CONCESSION - IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IMPOSING IN LONG-TERM CONTRACTS IN THE EVENT OF HARDSHIP AN OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT ADAPTATION - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 6:111 PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

31-10-2011
DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY (BIT) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY THE BIT AND "INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHEN APPLICABLE" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES "A SORT OF INTERNATIONAL RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS REFLECTING RULES AND PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE MAJORITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS".

DEFENDANT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON GROUND OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF "PRECLUSION OF WRONGFULNESS" - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2, 7.1.6 AND 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

01-06-2012
DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT OVER THE LATTER'S ARBITRARY REFUSAL TO GRANT THE FORMER A MINING EXPLOITATION CONCESSION - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN CLAIMANT WAS NOT YET A UNITED STATES COMPANY

BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER INVESTMENT TREATY BY OMISSION - EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO GRANT CONCESSION NOT NECESSARY - MERE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO APPLICATION SUFFICIENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.1 UNDIROIT PRINCIPLES
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal (Full Tribunal)

02-07-2014
DISPUTE BETWEEN IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERNING ALLEGED BREACH BY UNITED STATES OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION ESTABLISHING THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – ACCORDING TO ARTICLE V OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION TRIBUNAL BOUND TO “DECIDE ALL CASES ON THE BASIS OF RESPECT FOR LAW, APPLYING SUCH CHOICE OF LAW RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES TO BE APPLICABLE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT USAGES OF TRADE, CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES”

UNITED STATES ORDERED TO PAY IRAN DAMAGES PLUS INTEREST – INTEREST CALCULATED “AT AN ANNUAL RATE EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE PRIME BANK LENDING RATE IN THE UNITED STATES” – TRIBUNAL SO DECIDED “[…] ALSO MINDFUL OF ARTICLE 7.4.9 (2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2010”
Netherlands
Gerechtshof Den Haag

11-09-2013
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE OF ARBITRAL AWARDS APPLYING THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS RULES OF LAW GOVERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISPUTE - REQUEST REJECTED BY COURT (DUTCH COURT)

APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ON ITS OWN MOTION OF ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - OBJECTION THAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAD EXCEEDED ITS MANDATE - REJECTED

LIMITATION PERIODS - A PARTY'S OBJECTION THAT OTHER PARTY'S CLAIMS WERE TIME-BARRED REJECTED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS THE 1994 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE

LIMITATION PERIODS - ARGUMENT THAT THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT 2004 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES REJECTED - RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DENIED