SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED
SELECTED CASES BY NATIONALITY OF THE PARTIES
| KEYWORD | Count of Cases |
|---|---|
| AFRICAN | 6 |
| ALGERIAN | 1 |
| ARGENTINIAN | 14 |
| AUSTRALIAN | 17 |
| AUSTRIAN | 10 |
| BAHAMIAN | 1 |
| BELGIAN | 6 |
| BELORUSSIAN | 7 |
| BERMUDIAN | 1 |
| BRAZILIAN | 9 |
| BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAND | 1 |
| BULGARIAN | 1 |
| CANADIAN | 13 |
| CENTRAL EUROPEAN | 1 |
| CHILEAN | 4 |
| CHINESE | 43 |
| COLOMBIAN | 8 |
| CONGOLESE | 1 |
| COSTA RICAN | 5 |
| CYPRIOT | 8 |
| CZECH | 1 |
| DANISH | 3 |
| DUTCH | 23 |
| DUTCH ANTILLEAN | 1 |
| EAST ASIAN | 1 |
| EASTERN EUROPEAN | 6 |
| ECUADORIAN | 2 |
| EGYPTIAN | 1 |
| ENGLISH | 42 |
| ESTONIAN | 2 |
| EUROPEAN | 59 |
| FINNISH | 1 |
| FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) | 1 |
| FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF WALES | 1 |
| FRENCH | 38 |
| GEORGIAN | 6 |
| GERMAN | 27 |
| GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC | 1 |
| GIBRALTAR | 1 |
| GREEK | 4 |
| HONG KONG | 4 |
| HUNGARIAN | 3 |
| INDIAN | 11 |
| INDONESIAN | 1 |
| INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD) | 1 |
| INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION | 3 |
| IRANIAN | 10 |
| IRAQI | 1 |
| IRISH | 1 |
| ISRAELI | 2 |
| ITALIAN | 52 |
| IVORIAN | 1 |
| JAPANESE | 5 |
| KAZAKH | 5 |
| KOREAN | 4 |
| KUWAITI | 5 |
| KYRGYZ | 1 |
| LATIN AMERICAN | 2 |
| LEBANESE | 7 |
| LIBYAN | 1 |
| LIECHTENSTEIN | 5 |
| LITHUANIAN | 17 |
| LUXEMBOURG | 1 |
| MALAYSIAN | 3 |
| MARSHALLESE | 1 |
| MEMBER FIRMS OF THE ANDERSEN WORLDWIDE ORGANIZATION | 1 |
| MEXICAN | 5 |
| MIDDLE EASTERN | 4 |
| MOLDAVIAN | 1 |
| MOROCCAN | 2 |
| NEW ZEALAND | 5 |
| NIGERIAN | 1 |
| NORTH AFRICAN | 2 |
| NORTH AMERICAN | 4 |
| NORWEGIAN | 2 |
| PAKISTANI | 2 |
| PANAMANIAN | 2 |
| PARAGUAYAN | 34 |
| PHILIPPINE | 2 |
| PLURALITY OF PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES | 7 |
| POLISH | 14 |
| PORTUGUESE | 3 |
| PUERTO RICAN | 1 |
| ROMANIAN | 13 |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 11174 00-00-2002 TERMS OF REFERENCE STATING THAT PARTIES AGREED TO THE APPLICATION OF A PARTICULAR DOMESTIC LAW (ROMANIAN LAW) – REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENTS – RESPONDENT DOES NOT OBJECT TO APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIES THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 10930 00-00-2002 CONTRACT BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A ROMANIAN COMPANY - CONTAINING A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF ROMANIAN LAW - REFERENCE ALSO TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, DEFINED "INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED", TO SUPPORT SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW MISTAKE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 3.4 AND 3.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FRAUD - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 3.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 12111 03-10-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A ROMANIAN MANUFACTURER AND AN ENGLISH COMPANY - GOVERNED BY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - GOODS TO BE DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO BUYER'S CUSTOMERS - GOODS ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE - PARTIES' FAILURE TO SETTLE CUSTOMERS' CLAIMS - SALES CONTRACT TERMINATED DAMAGES - CONTRIBUTION OF AGGRIEVED PARTY TO HARM - APPORTIONMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE HARM - DAMAGES REDUCED (ART. 7.4.7) INTEREST - TO BE PAID FROM DATE AMOUNT DUE UNTIL FULL PAYMENT MADE (ART. 7.4.9(2)) | |
|
Arbitral Award Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania 29-09-2005 CONTRACT BETWEEN A BELGIAN AND A ROMANIAN COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE EXCLUDING ANY DOMESTIC LAW AND REFERRING TO GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW RECOGNIZED TO BE APPLICABLE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW AS LEX CONTRACTUS - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDES THAT UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLY RELEVANCE OF USAGES - REFERENCE TO ART. 1.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration ICC-FA-2020-003 00-00-2011 CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO EUROPEAN PARTIES - REFERENCE TO APPLICABLE ROMANIAN LAW AND TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOR - PARTY PRECLUDED TO INSIST ON A CONTRACTUAL TERM SUPERSEDED BY A SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE PARTIES PROHIBITION OF INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOR - ESTOPPEL - GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 1.7 AND 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES WHICH ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL "RESTATE THESE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES" | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 20731 13-06-2017 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN INDIAN SELLER AND A ROMANIAN BUYER - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW – WHEN A DISPUTE AROSE, THE PARTIES REFERRED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NATIONAL LAWS – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO BASE ITS DECISION ON THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES BY APPLYING ART. 21(1) ICC ARBITRATION RULES ("RULES OF LAW WHICH [THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL] DETERMINES TO BE APPROPRIATE") | |
|
France Cour d'Appel de Paris 25-02-2020 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN INDIAN SELLER AND A ROMANIAN BUYER - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW – WHEN A DISPUTE AROSE, THE PARTIES REFERRED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NATIONAL LAWS – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO BASE ITS DECISION ON THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES BY APPLYING ART. 21(1) ICC ARBITRATION RULES ("RULES OF LAW WHICH [THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL] DETERMINES TO BE APPROPRIATE") | |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 18-04-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ITALIAN NATIONALS AND THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY - CAN BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - IN CASE OF LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY MUST BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION THE PROBABILITY OF THE CHANCE COMING TO FRUITION - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Romania High Court of Cassation and Justice 16-02-2010 DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT – BETWEEN TWO ROMANIAN COMPANIES –UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ROMANIAN LAW) PRINCIPLE OF PACTA SUNT SERVANDA – REFERENCE TO ART. 1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES NON-PERFORMANCE AND EXCEPTIO NON ADIMPLETI CONTRACTUS – REFERENCE TO ARTS. 5.1.1, 5.1.2 AND 7.1.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Romania Timiș County Court 22-04-2013 INSURANCE CONTRACT – BETWEEN TWO ROMANIAN PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ROMANIAN LAW) ASSIGNMENT OF A MONETARY RIGHT ARISING FROM AN INSURANCE CONTRACT – INSURANCE CONTRACT CONTAINING A NON-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE - ASSIGNMENT EFFECTIVE NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CLAUSE – REFERENCE TO ART. 1570 OF THE ROMANIAN CIVIL CODE WICH IS INSPIRED BY ART. 9.1.9(1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Romania Bucharest Court of Appeal 24-10-2014 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH SELLER AND A ROMANIAN BUYER – SELLLER’S STANDARD TERMS CONTAINING AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN FAVOR OF AN ARBITRATION SEATED IN ENGLAND – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET ART. 23 OF EUROPEAN COUNCIL REGULATION NO. 44/2001 ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS EFFECTIVENESS OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN STANDARD TERMS UNILATERALLY PREPARED BY SELLER AND SENT TO BUYER BY E-MAIL – RECEIPT PRINCIPLE – REFERENCE TO ART. 1.10 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EFFECTIVENESS OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN STANDARD TERMS UNILATERALLY PREPARED BY SELLER AND SENT TO BUYER BY E-MAIL – REFERENCE TO ARTS. 2.1.19 AND 2.1.20 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO AFFIRM THE VALIDITY AND WIDE DIFFUSION IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL PRACTICE OF THIS FORM OF CONTRACT CONCLUSION - BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PARTY WHO PROPOSES AN INTERPRETATION DIFFERENT FROM THAT PROVIDED BY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Romania Hunedoara County Court 27-05-2016 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT FOR THE USE OF A LAND – BETWEEN A ROMANIAN PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND A ROMANIAN INDIVIDUAL – UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ROMANIAN LAW) AGGRIEVED PARTY’S DUTY TO MITIGATE HARM – REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC ARTICLES OF ROMANIAN CIVIL CODE (2011) WHICH CORRESPOND IN SUBSTANCE TO ART. 7.4.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 77 CISG. | |
|
Ukraine Kyiv District Administrative Court 01-11-2013 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LEASE CONTRACT – BETWEEN AN UKRAINIAN STATE-OWNED COMPANY AND ROMANIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (1994 ED.) IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (UKRAINIAN LAW) INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT ACCORDING TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTY AND THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLE | |
| RUSSIAN | 102 |
| RWANDESE | 1 |
| SALVADORAN | 1 |
| SAUDI ARABIAN | 1 |
| SCANDINAVIAN | 1 |
| SCOTTISH | 1 |
| SERBIAN | 2 |
| SINGAPOREAN | 5 |
| SLOVAKIAN | 1 |
| SLOVENIAN | 1 |
| SOUTH AFRICAN | 1 |
| SOUTH KOREAN | 1 |
| SOUTHWEST ASIAN | 1 |
| SPANISH | 43 |
| STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION | 1 |
| SWEDISH | 8 |
| SWISS | 26 |
| TURKISH | 8 |
| TURKMEN | 1 |
| UKRAINIAN | 26 |
| UNION OF EUROPEAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS (UEFA) | 1 |
| UNITED KINGDOM | 3 |
| UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION | 2 |
| UNITED STATES | 46 |
| URUGUAYAN | 3 |
| UZBEK | 3 |
| VENEZUELAN | 5 |
| VIETNAMESE | 1 |
| WEST INDIAN | 2 |
| WESTERN EUROPEAN | 2 |
SELECTED CASES BY DOMESTIC LAW INVOLVED
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 - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS A RULE OF 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 ICC International Court of Arbitration 14581 00-06-2007 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR LEASING EQUIPMENT AND LICENSING TECHNOLOGY - BETWEEN TWO MINISTRIES OF STATE X AND A COMPANY OF STATE Y - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES" ARBITRATION CLAUSE PROVIDING THAT DISPUTES TO BE DECIDED BY "THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COURT IN SWITZERLAND" AND "IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW" - INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS CLAUSE ACCORDING TO SWISS LAW AS LAW OF SEAT OF ARBITRATION AND ACCORDING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INVOKED BY PARTES AS "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES", TOGETHER WITH EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW AND CISG - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SIMILAR PROVISION IN SWISS LAW |
|
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) |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 17146 00-00-2013 INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSNATIONAL RULES AND TRADE USAGES) ARBITRATION CLAUSE - INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH, OF EFFECTIVE INTERPRETATION AND OF CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE - REFERENCE TO ART. 4.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 04-06-2014 DISPUTE BETWEEN AN AUSTRIAN COMPANY AND THE SLOVAKIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE SECTOR - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY SLOVAKIA OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT CLAIMANT INITIATED COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC THAT WERE PREDICATED ON THE SAME FACTS AND LEGAL BASIS AND SOUGHT THE SAME RELIEF AS IN THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDING IMPLIED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN THE NATIONAL COURTS, NOT IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.11, 3.2.12, 4.1 AND 4.2) – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AGREES WITH CLAIMANT THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS THAT CLAIMANT HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE SINCE THE PROCEEDING BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 03-04-2018 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN BUYER AND A UKRAINIAN SELLER - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY CISG AND, FOR QUESTIONS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE CISG, THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES SINCE THE PARTIES EXPRESS THEIR INTENTION TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONAL LAW RIGHT TO INTEREST - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST RATE |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 10-01-2019 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN UNITED STATES INVESTORS AND THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT – BREACH OF THE LATTER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF A CHANCE - RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DAMAGES – COMPENSATION FOR FUTURE HARM DUE WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS – REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 04-06-2004 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT) CONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY PLANT IN TURKEY - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONTRACT WITH ESSENTIAL TERMS DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN AND TO BE AGREED UPON AT LATER DATE - CONTRACT VALID IF PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ART. 2.14 (NOW 2.1.14) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES- ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED |
|
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) 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) 14-01-2010 STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERRING TO ARTICLE 54 OF THE ICSID ADDITIONAL FACILITY ARBITRATION RULES RECORDED AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "A PRIVATE CODIFICATION OF CIVIL LAW, APPROVED BY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION WHICH ARE NEITHER TREATY, NOR COMPILATION OF USAGES, NOR STANDARD TERMS OF CONTRACT BUT IN FACT ARE A MANIFESTATION OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO COMMON INTENTION OF PARTIES - RELEVANCE OF PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATIONS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES MERGER CLAUSE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2.1.17 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DUTY TO USE BEST EFFORTS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 5.1.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
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) 28-03-2011 STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "A PRIVATE CODIFICATION OF CIVIL LAW, APPROVED BY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION WHICH ARE NEITHER TREATY, NOR COMPILATION OF USAGES, NOR STANDARD TERMS OF CONTRACT BUT IN FACT ARE A MANIFESTATION OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS - TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM DAMAGES FOR SIMPLE LOSS OF A CHANCE - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 12-05-2011 DISPUTE BETWEEN A SWISS COMPANY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE TOBACCO SECTOR - ICSID ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT) CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT AGREEMENT CONTAINING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS NULL AND VOID - LACK OF PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE - RESPONDENT CANNOT INVOKE THE VIOLATION OF ITS LOCAL LAW TO CONSIDER ITS CONSENT TO ARBITRATION VITIATED OR NULL SEVERABILITY OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE - CLAIMANT INVOKING ART. 3.16 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ON PARTIAL AVOIDANCE [NOW ART. 3.2.13] - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONCURS |
|
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 |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 18-04-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ITALIAN NATIONALS AND THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY - CAN BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - IN CASE OF LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY MUST BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION THE PROBABILITY OF THE CHANCE COMING TO FRUITION - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 30-10-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SWISS COMPANIES AND THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - COMPENSATION ONLY FOR FORESEEABLE HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 74 CISG DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - LOSS OF PROFITS CALCULATED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE BUYER FOR REPLACEMENT GOODS OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE MARKET PRICE AT THE TIME DELIVERIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IF REPLACEMENT GOODS ARE NOT PURCHASED - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 7.4.5-7.4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 75-76 CISG |
|
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 - 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 |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 02-12-2014 CONTRACT BETWEEN A VENEZUELAN COMPANY AND A DUTCH COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE LAW WITH WHICH IT IS MOST DIRECTLY CONNECTED - TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS, AMONG OTHERS, OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (ART. 30 VENEZUELAN ACT ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW) - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO AS AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 17-03-2023 BILL OF EXCHANGE - SIGNED BY VENEZUELAN INDIVIDUALS IN CURAÇAO – APPLICABLE LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF A CHOICE OF THE PARTIES – REFERENCE TO LEX MERCATORIA CONTAINED IN THE NATIONAL PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE LEX MERCATORIA LAW APPLICABLE TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE - MONETARY OBLIGATION FOR WHICH THE PARTIES DID NOT CHOOSE THE APPLICABLE LAW - OBLIGATION SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE - OBLIGEE’S PLACE OF BUSINESS” AS THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (ART. 6.1.6[1][a] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). |