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
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 9
SHARE OPTION AGREEMENT 1
SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 11
SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT 2
STATE CONTRACTS 33
SUPPLY CONTRACT 41
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, New York 16314

00-00-0000
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS TURBINE ENGINES SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND A SHIPYARD INCORPORATED IN A EUROPEAN COUNTRY - GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF COUNTRY X IN EUROPE

VIOLATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW - REFERENCE TO ART. 2.1.17 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO ART. 2:105 PECL TO CONFIRM THE RULE EXPRESSED BY THE APPLICABLE LAW - EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE MAY BE RELIED UPON TO INTERPRET THE CONTRACT AS FAR AS THE COMMON INTENTION OF THE PARTIES CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY THE PLAIN WORDING OF THE CONTRACT
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration (First Partial Award) 7110

00-06-1995
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY - CONTRACTUAL REFERENCE TO “LAWS OR RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE” – PARTIES’ INTENT TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF ANY DOMESTIC LAW IN FAVOUR OF “GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES ENJOYING WIDE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS” – APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "THE CENTRAL COMPONENT" OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES (CF. PREAMBLE OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

APPLICABILITY OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPLIED CHOICE BY THE PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS THE LAW THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE ACCORDING TO ART. 13(3)[NOW ART. 17(1) ICC ARBITRATION RULES)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration (Second Partial Award) 7110

00-04-1998
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY

LIMITATION PERIODS - MATTER NOT DEALT WITH BY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES [1994 EDITION] - RECOURSE TO OTHER INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF LAW - HELD THAT THERE IS NO SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLE PRESCRIBING A FIXED LIMITATION PERIOD WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS HAVE TO BE PURSUED

LIMITATION PERIOD - CLAIMS MAY BE TIME-BARRED IF PURSUED "WITH UNREASONABLE DELAY" (ART. 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

RIGHT TO WITHOLD PERFORMANCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW (SEE ART. 7.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)- SELLER'S RIGHT TO WITHOLD DELIVERY OF GOODS IF BUYER FAILS TO PAY THE PRICE

MITIGATION OF HARM - GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW (SEE ART. 7.4.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - SELLER ENTITLED TO DISPOSE OF THE GOODS AFTER THEIR STORAGE FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD

CONTRACT WITH TERMS DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN - AGREEMENT NOT PREVENTED FROM COMING INTO EXISTENCE (ART. 2.14 [ART. 2.1.14 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Geneva 10351

00-02-2001
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - GOVERNED BY A PARTICULAR DOMESTIC LAW

SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS TO THE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING THE PRICE - DUTY TO RENEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH - REFERENCE TO ART. 1.7 UNIDROIT TO CONFIRM THAT THAT THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT IN GOOD FAITH IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL 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
International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

08-02-2008
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A MOLDAVIAN COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR DELIVERY OF PART OF THE GAS TO A THIRD PARTY

THIRD PARTY'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THE GAS DELIVERED - SUPPLIER REQUESTS PAYMENT FROM BUYER THAT REFUSES TO PAY BECAUSE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR DIRECT DELIVERY OF GAS TO AND PAYMENT OF PRICE BY THIRD PARTY

GOOD FAITH ONE OF BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND 7 AND 8 CISG AS WELL AS TO ARTICLE 5.1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND COMMENTS 1 TO 3 TO ARTICLE 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Corte arbitrale nazionale ed internazionale di Milano

00-03-2008
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - GOVERNED BY ITALIAN LAW - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO STATE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SOLUTIONS ADOPTED UNDER ITALIAN LAW AND INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES

PARTIES' DUTY TO COOPERATE AS APPLICATION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH (ART. 1375 ITALIAN CIVIL CODE) - REFERENCE TO ART. 5.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

PROHIBITION OF INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - PARTY PREVENTED FROM TERMINATING THE CONTRACT AFTER LEADING THE OTHER PARTY TO BELIEVE IT WOULD TOLERATE THAT PARTY'S BREACH - BELIEF MUST BE REASONABLE - REFERENCE TO ART. 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

DAMAGES - AMOUNT MY BE ASSESSED AT DISCRETION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IF ACTUAL LOSS PROVED (ART. 1226 ITALIAN CIVIL CODE) - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Câmara FGV de Conciliação e Arbitragem (São Paulo, Brazil)

09-02-2009
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO BRAZILIAN COMPANIES

REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF CONCLUSION REACHED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (BRAZILIAN LAW)

POWER SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BRAZILIAN ENERGY TRADERS – UNFORESEEN SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN POWER PRICE - ALLEGED HARDSHIP AND CLAIM FOR TERMINATION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 478 OF BRAZILIAN CIVIL CODE – CLAIM REJECTED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 6.2.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES STATING THAT THE MERE FACT THAT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE ENTAILS HIGHER ECONOMIC BURDEN FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO HARDSHIP
Arbitral Award
Permanent Court of Arbitration

30-04-2009
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A LEBANESE COMPANY AND THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) – CONTRACT REFERRING TO THE “GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM” AS LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT AND APPLICABLE TO SUBSTANCE OF POSSIBLE DISPUTES – APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004

FORCE MAJEURE – EU DECISION PROHIBITING EXPORT OF CERTAIN GOODS FROM THE EU TO THIRD COUNTRIES NOT AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE IF PARTY COULD HAVE OVERCOME ITS EFFECTS BY TRANSFERRING ITS PLANT OUTSIDE THE EU – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT – EFFECTIVE VIS-À-VIS PARTY ASSIGNED ONLY IF THAT PARTY HAS GIVEN ITS CONSENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004
Australia
Federal Court of Australia

24-10-2008
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO AUSTRALIAN PARTIES – AGREEMENT DEFINED AS ONE OF SELLER AND BUYER, NOT AS ONE OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT – CONTRACT GOVERNED BY AUSTRALIAN LAW - APPLICATION OF THE CISG EXCLUDED

RELEVANCE OF GENERALLY KNOWN PRACTICES AND USAGES OF THE TRADE SECTOR CONCERNED FOR CHARACTERISATION OF NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES – REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 9(2) CISG, 1.9(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AND § 1-303 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

COURSE OF DEALING AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING AND SUPPLEMENTING TERMS OF THE CONTRACT – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 9(1) CISG, 1.9(1) AND 5.1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AND § 1-303 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE IN SUPPORT OF CORRESPONDING SOLUTION ACCEPTED IN DOMESTIC LAWS OF COMMON LAW COUNTRIES

PRICE REDUCTION DUE TO QUALITY DEFECTS OF GOODS DELIVERED – BUYER’S RIGHT TO PASS BACK TO SELLER PRICE REDUCTION IT HAD TO ACCEPT FROM ITS FINAL CUSTOMERS – EXISTENCE OF CORRESPONDING COURSE OF DEALING BETWEEN SELLER AND BUYER – TO BE PROVED
Australia
Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Appeal

16-12-2009
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND CISG AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (AUSTRALIAN LAW)

PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS AND POST-CONTRACTUAL CONDUCT AS AID TO INTERPRETATION OF WRITTEN CONTRACT - NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER AUSTRALIAN LAW - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTICLES 4.1-4.3) AND TO CISG (ARTICLE 8) - IRRELEVANCE OF BOTH INSTRUMENTS IN THE CASE AT HAND
Canada
Cour d'Appel, Province de Québec, District of Montreal

08-08-2016
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CANADIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (QUEBEC LAW)

CONTRAT D'ENERGIE - PRICE OF ELECTRICITY TO BE SUPPLIED FIXED FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF CONTRACT - SUPERVENING CHANGES ON ENERGY MARKET BENEFITING CUSTOMER - SUPPLIER INVOKING HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO ASK RENEGOTIATION DENIED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 AS WELL AS TO ILLUSTRATION 2 IN COMMENTS TO ARTICLE 6.2.2 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW
Italy
Tribunale Padova - Sez. Este

11-01-2005
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SLOVENIAN INDIVIDUAL AND AN ITALIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE BY PARTIES TO "THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PARIS, FRANCE" AS THE LAW GOVERNING THEIR CONTRACT - INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE TOO VAGUE AND IMPRECISE

REFERENCE BY PARTIES TO LEX MERCATORIA, UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OR CISG (IN CASES WHERE CISG IS NOT APPLICABLE) AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - NOT VERITABLE CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE - MERELY AMOUNTS TO INCORPORATION OF SUCH NON-BINDING RULES INTO THE CONTRACT

REQUIREMENT CONTRACTS - COVERED BY CISG

SUPPLIER'S FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS - AMOUNTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - BUYER ENTITLED TO TERMINATE CONTRACT (ART. 49(1)(B CISG) - CONDITIONS
Lithuania
Supreme Court of Lithuania

07-03-2012
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO LITHUANIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (LITHUANIAN LAW).

CONTRACT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD - REASONABLE TIME FOR A NOTICE OF TERMINATION - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 6.199 OF THE LITHUANIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 5.1.8 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Netherlands
Hoge Raad

24-04-2009
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - MILITARY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND THE IRANIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET CONTRACT CLAUSE

TERMINATION - CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME - TERMINATION NOT AFFECTING PARTS ALREADY PERFORMED (ARTICLE 7.3.6 (2) [ART. 7.3.7 OF THE 2010 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Netherlands
Rechtbank's-Gravenhage

11-05-2011
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY

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
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
Netherlands
Hoge Raad

22-05-2015
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY

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
New Zealand
Supreme Court of New Zealand

10-02-2010
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (NEW ZEALAND LAW)

CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND IN PARTICULAR OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS FOR INTERPRETATION OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ART. 4.3)
Russian Federation
Arbitrazh Court of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District – Yugra

08-07-2008
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN REGIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Thirteenth circuit arbitrazh court of appeal

05-06-2009
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY 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
Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

22-11-2010
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND CHINESE COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

12-07-2013
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58 (1) OF THE CISG

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation

01-08-2013
SUPPLY CONTRACT BETWEEN A GERMAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

CONTRACT NOT EXPRESSLY SPECIFYING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF GOODS - SELLER UNDER DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE INFORMATION ABOUT ORIGIN OF GOODS DELIVERED - REFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AS LAID DOWN IN ART.304 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND IN ART. 1.7 (1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Arbitrazh Court of Trans-Baikal Territory

12-09-2013
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) OF THE CISG

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

20-11-2013
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG

FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

23-12-2013
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG

FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Arbitrazh Court of Trans-Baikal Territory

27-12-2013
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG

FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Fifteenth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

21-01-2014
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A SPANISH COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS AND TO ARTICLE 432 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
Russian Federation
Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

31-01-2014
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG

FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Fifteenth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

05-02-2014
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A TURKISH COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO ART. 432 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Russian Federation
Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

14-02-2014
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG

FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Russian Federation
Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

11-03-2014
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG

FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Spain
Tribunal Supremo (sala de lo Civil, Sección 1ª)

03-12-2008
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SPANISH COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY SPANISH LAW

TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - NOTION OF "FUNDAMENTAL BREACH" - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.3.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, ARTICLES 8:101 AND 8:103 PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND ART. 49(1) CISG

BUYER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE - AMOUNTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - SELLER ENTITLED TO TERMINATION
Spain
Tribunal Supremo

17-02-2010
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - COAL SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SPANISH COMPANIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (SPANISH LAW)

FUNDAMENTAL NON-PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.3.1(2)(A) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Switzerland
Bundesgericht

16-12-2009
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF "DOMESTIC SWISS LAW" - APPLICATION OF CISG EXCLUDED

CONTRACT PROVIDING TERMINATION IN CASE OF "MATERIAL BREACH" - CONCEPT OF "MATERIAL BREACH" UNKNOWN IN DOMESTIC SWISS LAW - INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 25 CISG AND ARTICLE 7.3.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

CONTRACT INTERPRETATION UNDER DOMESTIC SWISS LAW - ABSENT A COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON - INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS - CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF DETERMINING UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON
Ukraine
High Commercial Court of Ukraine

24-11-2010
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND AN UKRAINIAN CITY COUNCIL - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (UKRAINIAN LAW)

HARDSHIP - REFERENCE TO ART. 652 OF THE UKRAINIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ART. 6.2.1 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Ukraine
Volyn Regional Commercial Court

08-06-2012
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO UKRAINIAN COMPANIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (UKRAINIAN LAW)

HARDSHIP - SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 652 OF THE UKRAINIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 6.2.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Ukraine
High Commercial Court of Ukraine

16-04-2013
SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO UKRAINIAN COMPANIES - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ACCORDING TO UKRAINIAN LAW - EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE HIGH COMMERCIAL COURT OF UKRAINE OF 2008, STATING THAT UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ENSHRINE THE TRADE CUSTOMS APPLIED IN UKRAINE.

APPLICATION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ACCORDING TO COURT ONLY IF SO AGREED BY THE PARTIES.
Ukraine
High Administrative Court of Ukraine

22-04-2013
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND KAZAKH COMPANY - UKRAINIAN LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY PARTIES TO CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE BY COURT TO CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER UKRAINIAN LAW
United Kingdom
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

17-02-2006
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - WRITTEN CONTRACT CONTAINING A MERGER CLAUSE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND IN PARTICULAR OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 4.1-4.3) AND CISG (ART. 8)
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