SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED

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

25-04-1996
CATERING SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A FRENCH-KAZAKH COMPANY - FRENCH LAW APPLICABLE

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT - FRENCH LAW UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER DISPATCH OR RECEIPT PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE - REFERENCE TO USAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE (ART. 13(5) ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION) ACCORDING TO WHICH RECEIPT PRINCIPLE APPLIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Zürich 8769

00-12-1996
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND AN AUSTRIAN COMPANY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW) TOGETHER WITH THE 1980 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (CISG) AS LAW GOVERNING THEIR CONTRACT

INTEREST RATE NOT DETERMINED BY CISG (ART. 78 CISG) - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ART. 7.4.9(2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE RATE
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8874

00-12-1996
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED KINGDOM COMPANY AND A BELORUSSIAN COMPANY

ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AUTHORIZED BY PARTIES TO ACT AS AMIABLE COMPOSITEUR

INTEREST RATE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION
Arbitral Award
Arbitral Court of the Economic Chamber and the Agrarian Chamber of the Czech Republic

17-12-1996
SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF TWO VESSELS - BETWEEN A POLISH COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (POLISH LAW) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERENCE WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION REACHED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW

DELEGATION OF PAYMENT - DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SUBSTITUTION OF DEBTOR - ORIGINAL DEBTOR DISCHARGED ONLY WHEN PAYMENT IS MADE (ART. 921(5) POLISH CIVIL CODE) (ART. 6.1.7(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration, New York

00-12-1997
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND A COMPANY SITUATED IN AN AFRICAN STATE

“GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT LAW” AS THE RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO SUBSTANCE OF DISPUTE – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Geneva 9333

00-10-1998
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A MOROCCAN PARTY AND A FRENCH PARTY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (SWISS LAW) AS LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS USAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

INTEREST (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) (ART. 78 CISG) (ART. 104 SWISS CODE OF OBLIGATIONS)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration (Paris) 9474

00-02-1999
STATE CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REQUESTED TO APPLY “GENERAL STANDARDS AND RULES OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS” – REFERENCE TO CISG “WHICH EMBODIES UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS” AND TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AS “RECENT DOCUMENTS THAT EXPRESS THE GENERAL STANDARDS AND RULES OF COMMERCIAL LAW”.

AVOIDANCE OF CONTRACT FOR FRAUDULENT NON-DISCLOSURE OF CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE ARTICLES 3.5 AND 3.8 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES; ARTICLE 4.107 OF THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW).

TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR NON-PERFORMANCE – NOTICE TO BE GIVEN WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME (SEE ARTICLE 7.3.2 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES).
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 9753

00-05-1999
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED KINGDOM COMPANY AND A CZECH STATE ENTITY - GOVERNED BY CZECH LAW – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION FOUND IN DOMESTIC LAW.

AGREEMENT TO COOPERATE WITH A VIEW TO REALISING A PROJECT – BINDING NATURE OF SUCH AGREEMENT (SEE ARTICLES 1.3 AND 1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES).
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 10114

00-03-2000
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE COMPANY AND AN EASTERN EUROPEAN CAR MANUFACTURER

APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS EXPRESSION OF “INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES”
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc arbitration

04-12-2001
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ITALIAN COMPANY AND THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) - CONTRACT REFERRING TO “GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY SINGLE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF LAW” AS APPLICABLE LAW – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO RESORT, IN CASE OF LACUNAE, TO ITALIAN LAW PROVIDED THAT IT IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FORMER

TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR BREACH OF THE “FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF GOOD FAITH, TRUST AND FAIR DEALING WHICH ARE AT THE VERY HEART OF ANY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP” - NO PROVISION TO THIS EFFECT IN THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (1994 EDITION) – RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 1671 ITALIAN CIVIL CODE ON TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF WORKS CONTRACTS BY EMPLOYER
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Montevideo 11317

00-01-2002
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SPANISH COMPANY AND A BRAZILIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (SPANISH LAW)

CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF SPANISH LAW - BRAZILIAN PARTY INVOKING THE APPLICATION OF BRAZILIAN LAW ACCORDING TO ART. 9(2) OF THE INTRODUCTORY LAW TO BRAZILIAN CIVIL CODE (PRINCIPLE OF LOCUS REGIT ACTUS) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS THE VALIDITY OF THE APPLICABLE LAW CHOICE ON THE BASIS OF BOTH SPANISH AND BRAZILIAN LAW - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 1.4 AND 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE DECISION
Arbitral Award
International Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

05-11-2002
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A GERMAN COMPANY - CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION OF BOTH GERMAN LAW AND RUSSIAN LAW AND OF THE “GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LEX MERCATORIA“ – APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES.

INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT – NATURE OF THE CONTRACT AND INTENTION OF THE PARTIES (ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.3 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES).

INTEREST PAYABLE ON AMOUNT DUE – MONETARY CLAIM IN EURO – APPLICATION OF THE INTEREST RATE APPLIED BY RUSSIAN BANKS FOR LOANS STIPULATED IN EURO (ARTICLE 7.4.9 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES).
Arbitral Award
Arbitration Centre of the Costa Rican Chamber of Commerce

01-06-2003
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A COSTA RICAN COMPANY AND A COSTA RICAN ACCOUNTING FIRM - GOVERNED BY COSTA RICAN LAW - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES "NOT AS A SOURCE OF LAW AGREED UPON OR INVOKED BY THE PARTIES, BUT INSTEAD FOR THEIR DOCTRINAL VALUE"

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - PARTIES' DUTY TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD FAITH (ART. 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 15089

15-09-2008
HIGH-TECHNOLOGY SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO MIDDLE-EASTERN PARTIES - CONTRACT SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW

ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, HAVING FOUND THAT THERE WAS A ‘NEGATIVE CHOICE’ AS REGARDS THE PARTIES' RESPECTIVE DOMESTIC LAWS AND NO CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE ‘OBJECTIVE’ CONNECTING FACTOR IN FAVOUR OF ANY PARTICULAR DOMESTIC LAW, DECIDED TO APPLY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 17 ICC ARBITRATION RULES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS AN INTERNATIONAL RE-STATEMENT (OR PRE-STATEMENT) OF MODERN CONTRACT LAW IN ITS MOST AUTHORITATIVE FORM, WELL-KNOWN IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PRACTICE AND ENDORSED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW (UNCITRAL)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 15949

00-05-2012
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A NORTH AFRICAN COMPANY AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW)

HOTEL MANAGEMENT CONTRACT - TERRORIST ATTACKS IN NEW YORK, DJERBA AND MARRAKECH AMOUNT TO FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS - RESPONDENT ALLOWED TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF MINIMAL GUARANTEE PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES


EFFECTS OF FORCE MAJEURE - WHEN THE IMPEDIMENT IS ONLY TEMPORARY, THE EXCUSE FOR NON_PERFORMANCE HAS EFFECT ONLY FOR A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME HAVING REGARD TO CONSEQUENCES OF THE IMPEDIMENT ON CONTRACT PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ITS COMMENT
Arbitral Award
International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

25-01-2013
TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND AN ENGLISH COMPANY - CONTRACT SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIED GERMAN LAW TOGETHER WITH THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Argentina
Court of Appeal of Buenos Aires

13-03-2009
BROADCASTING SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ARGENTINIAN COMPANIES

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ARGENTINIAN LAW)

STANDARD TERMS BETWEEN BUSINESS PERSONS - TO BE INTERPRETED BASICALLY IN THE SAME WAY AS INDIVIDUALLY NEGOTIATED TERMS AND UNENFORCEABLE ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 2.1.20, 2.1.21 AND 2.1.22 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Argentina
Court of Appeal of Buenos Aires

13-03-2009
BROADCASTING SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ARGENTINIAN COMPANIES

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABL DOMESTIC LAW (ARGENTINIAN LAW)

STANDARD TERMS BETWEEN BUSINESS PERSONS - TO BE INTERPRETED BASICALLY IN THE SAME WAY AS INDIVIDUALLY NEGOTIATED TERMS AND UNENFORCEABLE ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 2.1.20, 2.1.21 AND 2.1.22 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
China
Nanjing Gulou District People’s Court

00-00-2007
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE INDIVIDUAL AND A CHINESE COMPANY - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW

"COMMENTS" BY A CHINESE JUDGE ON COURT DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING – APPLICATION OF THE MITIGATION PRINCIPLE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.8 IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 1994.
China
Beijing Haidian District People’s Court; First Intermediate People's Court of Beijin

00-00-2008
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE INDIVIDUAL AND A CHINESE HOTEL COMPANY - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW

"COMMENTS" BY A CHINESE JUDGE ON COURT DECISION - NOT LEGALLY BINDING – WHETHER THERE WAS ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES ON ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004
China
Chongqing Fuling District People’s Court

00-00-2009
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN CHINESE INDIVIDUALS - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW

"COMMENTS" BY A CHINESE JUDGE ON COURT DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING – COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.2 IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 1994.
Costa Rica
Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José

23-03-2006
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A COSTA RICAN COMPANY AND THE COSTA RICAN AVIATION AUTHORITY - COSTA RICAN LAW APPLICABLE - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - NO VIOLATION OF "ORDRE PUBLIC" OF COSTA RICA

HARDSHIP - NO RIGHT TO WITHHOLD PERFORMANCE BY AGGRIEVED PARTY - ARTICLE 6.2.3 (A) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
France
Cour d'appel de Paris (1er Ch.C.)

05-03-1998
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CATERING SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A FRENCH-KAZAKH COMPANY

REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A "CODIFICATION" OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE USAGES - WITHOUT EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION BY PARTIES - REFERENCE DOES NOT EXCEED TERMS OF SUBMISSION IF OF NO DIRECT IMPACT ON THE MERITS OF THE DECISION
Paraguay
Tribunal de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial de Asunción

21-11-2016
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO PARAGUAYAN PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (PARAGUAYAN LAW)

DEFINITION OF AN OFFER – REFERENCE TO ART. 2.1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - RELEVANCE OF THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF ONE OF THE PARTIES - REFERENCE TO ART. 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Federal Arbitrazh Court of the Volgo-Vyatsky District

27-06-2003
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - STORAGE SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW).

NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 401(3) OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation

14-03-2008
REPAIR SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY

REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

DAMAGES - FORSEEABILITY OF HARM - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation

14-03-2008
SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF A VESSEL BETWEEN RUSSIAN COMPANY AND UKRAINIAN SHIPYARD - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

PRINCIPLE OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY TO FORESEEABLE LOSS - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Arbitrazh Court of the Krasnoyarsk region

21-05-2009
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 IN SUPPORT OF SIMILAR SOLUTION UNDER RUSSIAN LAW
Russian Federation
Second circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

29-01-2010
SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF PIPELINE - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW).

NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Arbitrazh Court of the Saha Republic (Yakutia)

06-09-2011
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

GOODS STORED AT A RIVERPORT DESTROYED BY FIRE - FIRE NOT AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN AND AVOIDED BY RIVER PORT AUTHORITY - REFERENCE TO APPLICABLE RUSSIAN LAW AND TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES.
Russian Federation
Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation

03-05-2012
SERVICE CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

LOSS OF PROPERTY IN CUSTODY DUE TO A FIRE - EVENT AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE ONLY IF IT IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY EITHER BECAUSE THAT PARTY COULD NOT FORESEE IT OR BECAUSE IT COULD NOT AVOID OR OVERCOME ITS CONSEQUENCES - REFERENCE TO ART. 401 RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ART. 7.1.7(1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Second circuit Arbtrazh Court of Appeal

31-08-2012
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW).

NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Arbitrazh Court of Sakhalin Region

02-12-2013
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN STATE-OWNED COMPANY AND ANOTHER RUSSIAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 401 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS
Russian Federation
Arbitrazh court of Kostroma region

23-05-2014
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN RUSSIAN INDIVIDUAL AND RUSSIAN MUNICIPALITY - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET OR SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

DAMAGES - AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - EQUITABLE QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Spain
Audiencia Provincial de Madrid

27-05-2008
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SECURITY SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SPANISH PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES USED AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (SPANISH LAW)

TERMINATION OF CONTRACT - FUNDAMENTAL NON-PERFORMANCE (ARTICLE 7.3.1)
Uruguay
Tribunal Apelaciones Civil 1st

22-10-2014
SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A KOREAN COMPANY AND AN URUGUAYAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (URUGUAYAN LAW)

ADMISSIBILITY OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
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